Credit Reference Agencies

Lord Higgins: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What steps have been taken by the Information Commissioner and credit agencies to ensure that, when an individual applies for credit, such agencies reveal information concerning that individual alone, and that data on others in the same family or at the same address remain confidential.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, in response to concerns expressed by the commissioner, the industry is implementing proposals for restricting the use of third party data in the lending process. The main proposals are that financial connections will not be assumed solely on the basis of shared surnames and addresses; that parents and children will no longer automatically be assumed to be financially connected; and that individuals asking to see their credit files will normally receive only their own data.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, as the Data Protection Act was passed as long ago as 1998, does the Minister agree that the practice of credit rating agencies releasing personal financial information to other family members and to those thought to have a financial connection has gone on far too long? How much longer does she expect such a practice to continue? Surely, it should stop straightaway.
	Secondly, will the Government consider the situation whereby the provision of inadequate information by credit rating agencies to lenders may result in wealthy and, more importantly, poor people being denied credit because they do not have much or any credit history?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the new provisions will address the issues outlined by the noble Lord. The commissioner, as the noble Lord will know, did not have the ability to act independently in relation to this matter until the changes that took place in 1998. Before that time, she was bound by a tribunal decision that did not allow her to take action. The industry is working with the commission. There are three main agencies. One is already compliant with the proposals that I have outlined; the second is likely to be compliant by June; and the progress of the third credit reference agency is being carefully monitored.
	On the noble Lord's second point, to whom such agencies lend their money will always be a matter of commercial judgment. There has to be sound practice in that regard and one has to keep a watchful eye in relation to those matters. One cannot improperly interfere with what is, in essence, a commercial judgment.

Lord Borrie: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is extremely undesirable for anyone to be over-committed with debt? If someone who is not credit-worthy lives in a household and applies for credit in the name of one of the other members of the household, and if the credit rating agency does not have information about the other members, what is to stop the non-credit-worthy person intercepting the replies and obtaining credit when he or she is completely non-credit-worthy?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I understand what the noble Lord says. What he has just described is fraud. We have laws that are perfectly capable of dealing with people who so act. The important point about the change is that it is unjust for the sins of the father to be visited on the son or vice versa. Each of us has an entitlement to be judged on what we do or do not do as opposed to that which is done by a member of our family.

Lord Rogan: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that credit agencies now recognise BFPO addresses as permanent addresses for the purposes of assessing the credit worthiness of the members of our Armed Forces while they are serving abroad? If not, will she make representation to the credit rating agencies to rectify that anomaly?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am very much aware of the concern raised by the noble Lord. Quite often our Armed Forces serve abroad and are put at a disadvantage. Of course, it is a matter for the commissioner but I shall take it into account and undertake to write to the noble Lord in relation to it.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, the Minister will know that it is extremely difficult to open a bank account if one does not have a credit rating. In that case, how will poor people open a bank account if they do not have a credit rating? What effect will that have on the Government's proposal for universal bank accounts?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I understand the difficulties to which the noble Baroness refers. It will be a matter for those who lend money to decide the basis on which that money is to be lent. Another problem is that of people undertaking commitments in relation to loans that they simply cannot afford. A working party has been set up to look at the issue of over-indebtedness. I am sure that that will be one of the issues that the working party may want to encompass.

Lord McNally: My Lords, will the Minister draw the attention of that working party to the advertising on commercial television, usually in the afternoons, by companies that put a heavy emphasis on phrases such as "No credit rating will be asked for", "Your loan will be automatic" and so on? Such advertisements appear to be aimed at vulnerable people who have already experienced indebtedness and will get deeper into debt as a result of that kind of aggressive advertising.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I understand the concern rightly expressed by the noble Lord. In setting up the task force to explore the causes and effects of over-indebtedness, which was set up in October 2000, that was one of the issues to be considered. The task force reported in April 2001. The main proposals were as follows: first, that the Department of Trade and Industry should commission research into the causes, effect and extent of consumer over-indebtedness and identify solutions. The department expects to publish the outcome of that research later this year. Secondly, the DTI should set up a working group to look at credit marketing techniques, to improve credit information to consumers and to look at the way payment protection insurance is sold. Those groups have now been established. Thirdly, lenders should improve their data sharing and the information they give when they turn down applications, and should stop offering unchecked instant credit, to which the noble Lord referred. Already one major trade association has banned unchecked instant credit. So we are addressing this problem and are doing so with a great deal of energy.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, can my noble friend say how she thinks the community legal service partnerships can assist in what is the central issue here; that is, over-indebtedness?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have tried to bring people together in relation to the provision of advice and legal services. Indebtedness is one of the issues to which many of the community legal service partnerships are rightly addressing their minds.

Five-pound Banknotes: Supply

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will encourage banks in England and Wales to make more £5 notes available in cash machines and at branch counters.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the production, issue and distribution of bank notes is the responsibility of the Bank of England. It is for the Bank to ensure that sufficient £5 notes are in circulation and that they are of suitable quality. Some banks have made a commercial decision to limit their stock of £5 notes and not to use them in cash machines for reasons of cost effectiveness and demand. However, the Bank is working with high street banks, the Post Office and key retailers to improve the quantity and quality of £5 notes in circulation.

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he realise, and do the Government accept, that people want more fivers rather than pockets full of coins or large, inconvenient notes? The Bank of England is having to work through Marks & Spencer and Consignia because the banks are being extremely unhelpful in making £5 notes available. It is quite possible, as Northern Ireland shows, to make available £5 notes, but it is extremely difficult to get them from tills. Leading retailers have been conducting a survey. When will the banks begin to pay attention to the needs of their customers so we do not all have to make do with a few filthy fivers because they are not doing their job properly?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, fivers are filthy not because there are not enough of them, but because people shove them in their pockets with their change. They only last nine months; £10 and £20 notes last two to three years. Fivers last for much less time. However, the Bank of England is introducing new £5 notes on 21st May with the portrait of Elizabeth Fry instead of George Stephenson. I understand that they will be considerably tougher.
	Cash machines normally have only two cassettes and it is the commercial judgment of the banks that, except in some cases like university towns, their customers want £10 and £20 notes rather than £5 notes.

Lord Brookman: My Lords, has my noble friend any idea as to whether or not the Government wish to reintroduce the old white £5 notes? Some on these Benches still have many in their possession.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, a share-out is called for! I remember them with affection. Perhaps my noble friend would like to go back to before 1855 when all bank notes had to be filled in by the cashier with the name of the payee. We do not intend to go that far back.

Lord Sheldon: My Lords, since the present £5 note is worth approximately the same amount as half-a-crown in 1939, has any consideration been given to producing a £5 coin?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, yes. The Bank of England does not believe that that would be appropriate at the present time. The £2 coins are doing rather well; let us wait until they settle in.

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that if the £50 note was adjusted for inflation since its original introduction, it would now be worth over £115? Is there not a case for introducing at least a £100 note given that euro notes go up to 500 euros, which is about £300?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not sure we want to follow the euro in having such large denominational notes. They are only in circulation in some European countries. There is a risk of money laundering being made easier because one can carry an awful lot of money in a single briefcase. I should have thought we had to be quite careful about introducing larger denomination notes.

Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, has the Minister seen the survey carried out among its members by the British Retail Consortium? It clearly shows that the £5 note remains a popular and vital part of our currency. Will the Minister take on board the fact that banks are acting in their own interests and not in the interests of the general public?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is why we are grateful to high street retailers, members of the British Retail Consortium, for the help that they are giving to the Bank of England to keep £5 notes in circulation. Clearly, we shall not interfere in the commercial decisions of banks, but the Bank of England is taking steps to circumvent them.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, when people mention £5 coins, an automatic answer seems to be that they are too large and too heavy. Has consideration been given to the possibility of making higher value coins much smaller and lighter than lower value coins, as happens in Australia? Would not that be an answer with the £5 coin?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, for many years there has been a tendency for coins of any given denomination to become smaller and lighter. That is clearly welcome, but we still find heavy weights in our pockets and any additional coins, as opposed to notes, would not be attractive.

Lord Weatherill: My Lords, without wishing to prolong this discussion, if your Lordships wish to have brand new £5 notes, or even brand new £5 coins, they need go only to the post office in Central Lobby.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is a helpful suggestion.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, my ambition in life is to be smaller and lighter. Following a conversation at lunch, does the Minister agree that it is important to maintain the difference in size of different notes to help blind people, to whom size is important?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, whatever changes the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, makes, she will never be less impressive. Let me make clear that her lunch was not with me, but the new £5 note will be the same size as the existing £5 note and the difference in size between existing denominations will be maintained.

Street Crime

Baroness Blatch: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What policy initiatives are in place or are due to be introduced to ensure that street crime is brought under control by the end of September.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Government are introducing a comprehensive package of anti-street crime initiatives in the 10 force areas with the worst problem. Those include the fast-tracking of video identity parades; the establishment of specialist courts to deal with street crime and fast-tracking of cases; the extension of juvenile tagging on bail; clarification of the legality of bail door-stepping conditions; new powers for the courts to remand young people to secure accommodation; better systems for sharing information between schools and the police; more schemes involving police in schools; measures to crack down on truancy and bad behaviour in schools; and provision of full-time education for excluded pupils in the worst affected areas.
	I can assure the House that there will be further announcements as more initiatives come on stream.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his list. The Prime Minister pledged to bring street crime under control by September. That pledge comes against a background of crime across England rising by 21 per cent; robberies up by 42 per cent; the number of police down by 500 since 1997; and the number of Specials down by 37 per cent—a mighty 7,100. If the Prime Minister is now pledged to bring all that under control in 16 weeks' time, why has he not been more successful during the past five years?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Government's record on crime is extremely impressive. Since 1997, crime has reduced by 21 per cent overall. I accept that robberies have increased during that time. That is precisely why the Government—the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the Government as a whole—are fully committed to introducing a range of measures to tackle crimes such as robbery and to ensure that they are swept from our streets.

Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, given that much street crime is caused by the misuse of hard drugs, does my noble friend agree that the approach of the Association of Chief Police Officers—to provide more treatment, as opposed to punishment—is sensible to deal with the problem? Those who argue that that is going soft on drugs are wrong, because that deals with the problem in a far smarter way by providing exits from the addiction that drives people to commit street crime.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is commonly accepted and widely known that drugs drive crime—street crime in particular. That is why the Government have in the past couple of Budgets announced more resources to tackle crime. As part of that initiative, the Department of Health will ensure that the necessary drug treatments are in place, so that services are fully engaged in exchanging information—in particular, about children at risk from drugs and drug offences. So we are fully committed to ensuring that we do everything that we can to tackle the drugs menace.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, can the Minister tell us of any additional financial resources available to criminal justice agencies to reduce crime by September? What advice—research advice in particular—did the Prime Minister receive about withdrawal of benefits from parents and its impact on crime?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, yesterday, the Home Office made an announcement of a budget boost to tackle street crime, along with a package of measures to assist the police in countering terrorism. On the question of child benefit and its withdrawal, the Prime Minister made plain yesterday that that is one of a number of proposals being actively considered as part of the Government's overall drive against anti-social behaviour.

Lord Renton: My Lords, does the noble Lord recollect that until about 30 or 40 years ago, streets in many of our urban areas were patrolled, even through the night, by pairs of police officers on foot? That helped to keep crime down. Might that not be an advantage now in some urban areas?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, of course we fully support, encourage and fund active beat patrolling by police officers. It is for the 34 chief constables and their senior officers to deploy their police resources as best they can. The Government are fully committed to ensuring that we have more police officers. By March next year, we will have 130,000 police officers serving in this country—a record number.

Lord Elton: My Lords, to what level will street crime have to be reduced for the Prime Minister to say that it has been brought under control? In other words, what is the Government's view of an acceptable level of street crime? Can we have a figure, so that we will know when we get there?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, any street crime is unacceptable. There is a Public Service Agreement target, which is to reduce robberies by 14 per cent during the next five years, but I expect that your Lordships' House would like street crime to be eradicated in its entirety.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, who will treat all those people; where will they be treated; and what will happen if they refuse to accept treatment—after all, they have committed crimes? What is the essence of the working of the plan?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the anti-street crime initiative takes many forms. We are attacking the problem through schools, by having police officers attached to schools with particular problems. There will be more resources to deal with drug treatment and to tackle the increased use of courts. The police are receiving more resources to ensure that they can do their job with greater perception and accuracy. The whole strategy is linked, comprehensive and coherent, and it has the support of the police service.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, in the list of measures that the noble Lord read out, he said nothing about closed-circuit television cameras. Has the Metropolitan Police presented a budget for extra CCTV cameras in the areas worst affected by street crime? If so, how much of that money has been provided?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not have those figures to hand. As the noble Lord will know, the Government—and the previous government—have invested considerable resources in enhancing CCTV nationally. Budgets have been specifically set aside for that and the impact of CCTV is widely acknowledged as being most beneficial in driving down crime.

Public Expenditure: Health and Education

Lord Chadlington: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they propose to increase budget allocations in health and education to compensate for the increase in national insurance contributions announced in the Budget.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Chancellor announced in the Budget that spending on health would increase by over £40 billion over the next five years. Decisions on education spending and all other public services will be announced in this summer's spending review. Under existing plans, UK education spending will rise by £4.4 billion next year.

Lord Chadlington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Can he tell the House what percentage of the NHS budget and the schools budget will go towards paying national insurance in 2005-07?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not have immediately to hand the figures for the percentages to be spent on national insurance. I have a figure for the increase caused by the increase in national insurance contributions. That is more relevant to the original Question. For the whole economy, the increase in national insurance contributions will cost 0.7 per cent of payroll costs. That puts the issue in perspective.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the figure for education is over £80 million? Does he agree with me that, if that sum is not compensated for pound for pound, the money can come only from within the services—health and education?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the figure is considerably greater than £80 million; it is £180 million for schools in England. I think that, in the interests of accuracy, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, should not underestimate the figures. It is more difficult to get figures for the whole of education, because universities are, strictly speaking, in the private sector, and we do not keep the information centrally.
	With regard to the second question asked by the noble Baroness, I have said that, under existing plans, UK education spending will rise by £4.4 billion next year. We must look, as we did last week, at the contrast between the huge increase in expenditure on public services and the increase in costs for the public sector caused by the increase in national insurance contributions. Are the Opposition in favour of having the increases in national insurance contributions apply only to the private sector? Are they against improvements to public services?

Lord Newby: My Lords, does the Minister accept that, as a result of the changes announced in the Budget, the average primary school will have to pay £4,000 extra in national insurance and the average secondary school £20,000 extra? In the same Budget, it was announced that the Standards Fund receipts would amount to £5,500 per primary school and £16,000 per secondary school. Does the Minister agree that that is a classic example of the maxim, "What the Chancellor giveth the Chancellor also taketh away"?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, somebody must pay for public services, as my noble friend Lord Peston reminded the House last week. The figures that I have given for total expenditure on education are, of course, the current figures. It is not for me to anticipate the position in any sector—except health, for which decisions have already been taken—after the 2002 spending review, the results of which will be announced this summer.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, can we get to the core of the Question asked by my noble friend Lord Chadlington? What will the National Health Service have to pay because of the increase in contributions? Would it not be more candid to deduct that figure from the gross figure for how much more is being spent on the National Health Service? That would be a more accurate definition of what is actually being spent. At the moment, we have the ceaseless recirculation of money being paid in taxes which is then, allegedly, put back into the same service.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall certainly give the figures. I gave them last week and gladly do so again. The increase in national insurance contributions will cost the health service £300 million out of an increase of £6.7 billion. The House should concentrate on that relationship rather than thinking about the complications that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, would wish us to indulge in.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, is the Minister aware how welcome is the additional £66 million made available to schools on 25th April for, for example, extra behavioural support in classes to reduce truancy and exclusion? This morning, I spoke to the head teacher of a primary school in King's Cross who is desperate to obtain more support for one of her children. The child, whose mother and sister are heroin addicts, has a brain tumour. Additional resources will make all the difference to people such as that teacher, who has made a success of her school, which was once deemed by the Evening Standard to be one of the 10 worst schools in London.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, what the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has said brings realism and a breath of fresh air to the debate.

Deputy Chairmen of Committees

Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, on behalf of the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Burnham, the Baroness Fookes, the Baroness Gould of Potternewton, the Lord Haskel and the Baroness Thomas of Walliswood be added to the Panel of Lords appointed to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this Session.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will the Chairman of Committees confirm that the nominations made by the Committee of Selection are based on the criteria relating to standards in public life? In particular, I am thinking of objectivity, fairness and transparency. Is the objective basis for the evaluation of possible Deputy Chairmen of Committees transparently available to Members or do we still have a rather unclear system, operated through the usual channels?

Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I suspect that it is the latter.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Communications

Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the Commons message of yesterday be now considered, and that a Committee of six Lords be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Commons to consider and report on any draft Communications Bill presented to both Houses by a Minister of the Crown;
	That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following be named of the Committee:
	B. Cohen of Pimlico, L. Crickhowell, L. Hussey of North Bradley, L. McNally, L. Pilkington of Oxenford, L. Puttnam;
	That the Committee have power to agree with the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman;
	That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;
	That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
	That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom;
	That the reports of the Committee from time to time shall be printed, notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
	That the Committee do report no later than three months after the presentation of any such draft Bill;
	And that the Committee do meet with the Committee appointed by the Commons on Thursday 9th May at 3 o'clock in Room 134 Millbank House; and that a message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Mobile Telephones (Re-programming) Bill [HL]

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Rooker, I beg to introduce a Bill to create offences in respect of unique electronic equipment identifiers of mobile wireless communications devices. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
	On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Education Bill

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
	"EXEMPTION OF INNOVATIVE PROJECTS
	(1) This section has effect notwithstanding anything in Chapter 1 of this Act.
	(2) A maintained school governing body may, in consultation with the parents of children at the school, resolve to implement an innovative project which, in the opinion of the governing body, contributes to the raising of educational standards achieved by registered pupils at the school.
	(3) Subject to subsection (4), the governing body may resolve to exempt any innovative project from any requirement imposed by education legislation on the governing body.
	(4) The Secretary of State shall by order designate any requirement imposed by education legislation on a school governing body as not subject to exemption, relaxation or modification by a governing body, even in the case of an innovative project.
	(5) No order may be made under subsection (4), nor may any provision be made in such an order, unless the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales as the case may be is satisfied that such order or provision may be made without detriment to the education at the school of those pupils having special educational needs."

Baroness Blatch: Amendment No. 1 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 4, 7, 8, 14, 15 and 157, which will, I believe, be spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford. This is the beginning of what will be a lively and lengthy discussion of the Bill. Despite the Written Answers, the policy papers and the endless missives from the department, the Bill is still strong on powers and central control but light on detail. Much of our effort in Committee will be expended in eliciting details from the Government of how they intend the powers to be used.
	Few noble Lords will take issue with the Government's ambition that schools should be more proactive in exploring ways to raise standards. One key way to raise standards is to raise our expectations of children; when more is expected of children, more of them will rise to the challenge. However, at the outset of our debate, I must press the Government to spell out the problems experienced by schools that have led the Secretary of State to take such an open-ended power. What is it that a school is inhibited by law from doing in order to raise standards? I can think of examples such as altering term times and the number of days in the year on which attendance at school is required or the use of particular forms of punishment, which, in any case, is governed by European Union law. However, as regards almost any other aspect of running a school, exemption from legislation is not required.
	In order to raise standards one could consider teaching boys and girls separately; various forms of streaming by ability or setting by subjects; homework patterns; lunchtime and after-school curricular activities; methods of teaching; mentoring; the use of technology, including inter-active media; team teaching; rote learning; whole-class teaching; group and individual learning; the use of assistants in the classroom, both paid and voluntary; field trips; town and country visits; in-school and out-of-school project learning; the involvement of outside bodies; intensive special needs teaching by withdrawing pupils from class for all or part of a day; special programmes for the most able and for the least able; and exploring more effective means of recording progress. I could fill many more pages with actions that could be taken to raise standards which do not require any exemption from existing law. It is for the Government to argue their case. So in attempting to raise standards, what proportion of schools have been prevented innovating by a legal constraint? If there were legal constraints, what were they?
	I turn to a different point. Although through letters the Government have indicated the way in which the early clauses will be used, they have still not accepted the need to include certain safeguards in the Bill. For example, in answer to a Written Question (HL 3784) the Government indicated that the Secretary of State would consider the impact of any application to innovate on the breadth of provision available. That provision is not in the Bill.
	They also indicated that the Government,
	"would not in general regard a proposal to suspend the requirement to teach a compulsory subject as standards-raising unless appropriate arrangements were in place to secure high standards in the basics and a broad and balanced curriculum".—[Official Report, 30/4/02; col. WA93.]
	They would not in general, but perhaps they would in particular cases. Again, there is no reference to that on the face of the Bill.
	Fundamentally, no protection whatever is written into the Bill for children with special educational needs. The Bill is silent on that. Indeed, if the Government mean that no application would be accepted that disadvantaged any other group of children—including those with special educational needs—why not say so and why not say so on the face of the Bill?
	Then there is the perennial issue of bureaucracy. With between 23,000 and 24,000 schools applying individually, or even in co-operative groups, where is the army of civil servants to crawl over each application in order to verify the quality of the bids; to check the impact of the proposals on children and surrounding schools; and to test the depth and effectiveness of any consultation?
	During a previous debate on education, I said that civil servants in the DfES must shake with excitement when the Bills come forward because it means at least the sustenance of those in post and perhaps a doubling, trebling or even quadrupling of their army. One can only presume that the DfES has not lost its appetite for controlling from the centre.
	My amendment and those tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, aim to achieve the same result: that is, to encourage innovation with the aim of raising standards and to innovate, subject of course to the Secretary of State setting out by order in Parliament any requirement that would not be subject to exemption, relaxation or modification. In that way, if the Government believed that a broad and balanced curriculum must be provided and that no other group of children should be disadvantaged by a proposal or any other constraint they wanted to put in place, they could set that out in the order. That would allow schools to operate within a clear framework, and parents, governors and teachers—and under the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, local education authorities too—would be involved in the process.
	Most noble Lords who spoke at Second Reading accepted that protection for children with special educational needs was fundamental. That is why it is enshrined in my amendment. If accepted, the amendments would cut out costly and time-consuming bidding processes. Schools would have greater ownership of their programmes and they would be openly accountable to children, to parents and to Ofsted through the inspection system.
	Furthermore, there would be no need to time-limit projects. If they were successful, they would continue; if they were not, they would be dropped. They could be self-evaluated by the schools and they could be further externally evaluated by Ofsted. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will accept that a great deal of flexibility to explore ways of raising standards already exists in our schools.
	On a more cynical note, I expect that most schools would argue that if there were less central control and bureaucracy and if a greater sum of their core funding arrived in the schools for their budgets, there would be considerably more opportunity, time and money to fund innovative, standard-raising projects.
	Finally, there is a legislative tension—even, dare I say, contradiction?—which the Government have not addressed and I am afraid that they will have to do so. Under Section 5 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, LEAs have a duty to raise standards. In this Bill, local education authorities are not even statutory consultees. That matter will have to be addressed. I beg to move.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I rise to support Amendment No. 1 moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and to speak to Amendments Nos. 4, 7, 8 14, 15 and 157. In supporting Amendment No. 1, I noticed its similarities to an amendment moved by my honourable friend Mr Willis, Liberal Democrat spokesman for education in the other place. I congratulate the noble Baroness on making good use of that amendment.
	I want to speak more generally about the grouping of amendments because it gets to the heart of the Bill. The Government justify the Bill in terms of promoting innovation and diversification in the education sector. The first chapter of the Bill is all about innovation, but at no point have we had a satisfactory explanation of what "innovation" means. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, and the noble Baroness, Lady David, will try to give us a definition of "innovation" in some of the amendments that they will be moving later, but it is extraordinarily unsatisfactory that when pressed in the other place the best that the Minister, Mr Timms, could come up with was that "innovation" meant doing something new.
	I have been looking through the further explanations that we have received from the Government, in particular the guidance, about the power to innovate. I do not find in that any further explanation of "innovation". Innovation is therefore about doing something new, but I return to the point which arose again and again at Second Reading; that, surely, any good school has been doing it since kingdom come! We expect good schools to be innovative in any event.
	That is at the root of a series of amendments which I and the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, have put forward. We believe that all schools should be innovative, not just the good schools. We intensely dislike the concept of earned autonomy and we do not believe that it should relate only to the schools which have time to put their proposals to the Secretary of State.
	I know that there is a distinction between innovation and earned autonomy and I know that there is a degree to which those who have earned autonomy can act automatically. However, every school must apply to the Secretary of State. Moreover, Chapter 1 relating to innovation is extremely lengthy. When I read the guidance notes I was hit by the amount of time and energy which will have to be spent on examining and vetting each proposal for innovation.
	The Liberal Democrats' starting point—I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, shares my feelings—is that good schools are continually innovating and finding flexibilities within the system. I echo the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that within the education system there is little need to legislate to innovate because schools can do most of the things that they want to do.
	After talking with head teachers and governors I know that an area in which they might like to innovate is that relating to the curriculum. They would like a little more flexibility. One also knows that many schools with confident heads are already being innovative and finding ways around the national curriculum.
	However, some schools are perhaps slightly less innovative, or more diffident, and we want to encourage those. Our Amendment No. 15 is intended to encourage those schools to go forward. We should encourage not only the best schools, but also the average ones. Not only do the best need a push; very often it is actually the average schools that need a little extra encouragement.
	Again, we reject the notion of earned autonomy. Head teachers do not necessarily want to be told what to do. For example, with regard to pay and conditions, when talking with school heads and governors, it has been made clear to me that they feel that they already have quite enough flexibility in that area. Many do not want to touch it because they feel that they are walking into an absolute minefield.
	On top of all that, it is truly absurd that the Department for Education and Skills should think that every application needs to be vetted by the department itself. It already has something of a reputation for overload. Its staff have far too much to do and thus are not always able to respond as quickly as they might. Perhaps the department has become overburdened with its own bureaucracy. If that is the case, then why take on even more? Again, the notion that even under earned autonomy, schools will have to apply to the department rather than utilising the devolved system already established in local education authorities is quite absurd. At least the LEAs could vet the applications being put forward.
	The conclusion we reached was that if anything is needed in this area, it is a broad clause which would give all schools except for those in special measures leeway to deviate from the national curriculum to the tune of something in the order of 20 per cent of their time. The proposal about giving them a degree of flexibility as regards time came from an analogy with planning legislation. If people want to build an extension to their home which amounts to less than 20 per cent of the square footage of the original building, it can be done without having to seek specific planning permission. We thought that the same principle could be applied in the education sector. Thus one day of the school week could be devoted, if you like, to extra-curricular activities.
	That principle explains the thrust of the proposed new clause set out in Amendment No. 15. Subsection (1) makes it clear that any proposals would still have to contribute towards raising educational standards. Subsection (2) would ensure a broad and balanced curriculum and limit projects to no more than 20 per cent of time spent away from the subjects specified in the national curriculum. Subsection (3) would allow the Secretary of State, or the National Assembly for Wales, to issue guidance rather than regulations on the general aims in this area. Subsection (4) states that consultation should be carried out with parents and local education authorities. They must be satisfied that the proposals are sound. However, I stress that a school would be required to consult with a local education authority. Ultimately, the authority would not be able to exercise a veto on any proposals.
	Subsection (5) covers the procedures for the organisation that would have a veto over the proposals; that is, that they should be subject to the normal inspection procedures carried out by Ofsted. Although the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said that any good school would monitor its own progress on new innovations, if a verification by Ofsted suggested that the innovations were not contributing to an improvement in school performance, they would have to be dropped. Lastly, subsection (6) specifies that any school in special measures should not be given such a flexibility. For such schools, it would be nose to the grindstone on the national curriculum—although some might argue that those are the very schools which need a degree of flexibility.
	Amendments Nos. 4, 7, 8 and 14 are paving amendments for the substantive new clause set out in Amendment No. 15. Amendment No. 4 would change the wording from "qualifying bodies" to "schools". Perhaps we ought to have included in this grouping Amendment No. 3, to which I shall speak later, because we seek to delete the words,
	"in the opinion of the Secretary of State".
	Thus Amendment No. 7 would make the end of Clause 1(1) read "England and Wales", making obsolete Clause 1(2), as set out in Amendment No. 8.
	Clause 14 requires a little further explanation. It is needed because at present there is no definition of the concept of a "school term" in education legislation. Amendment No. 157 repeats precisely the same amendment, but I have tabled it at this point because I have been asked by Mr Chris Price, who is leading a commission that is considering the school year for the Local Government Association, to put in two amendments. The second amendment, to which I shall speak in due course, is Amendment No. 139. That would pave the way for a standardisation of the school year to be introduced at some stage if it is decided that we should move in that direction. We would then need to incorporate into education legislation a definition of the concept of a school term. Such a proposal would suit us well because in order to define the use of "one-fifth" of a school's time, we would need to be able to define exactly what would be the total time.
	We feel very strongly that every school should have the chance to innovate. This new clause would provide a facility for schools to do so; not unreasonably, but within a considered framework.

Lord Rix: Having been absent from the House of Lords for the first three days of this week owing to a sudden family bereavement, I was unaware of the opening amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, until rather late in the day when I took my place in the Committee. I apologise for that.
	I feel that I must give Amendment No. 1 my full support, in particular subsection (5). The Marshalled List contains many amendments referring to special educational needs and disability. How appropriate, therefore, to insert such a supportive clause right at the beginning of the Bill. It is but a harbinger of things to come. I hope that the Minister will be minded to offer a favourable response.

Baroness Perry of Southwark: I, too, have added my name to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford. However, I should also like to offer my strong support for the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Blatch. I shall not repeat all the points made so strongly by both noble Baronesses, rather I wish simply to underline my particular concern that we should not create a two-tier system of schools. Some schools might be rewarded with a proposal which in reality is simply plain, good educational practice. Other schools, however, which might already be doing less well, would not be allowed such flexibility. Please let us have the right to experiment and innovate within very carefully defined limits made available to all schools, except perhaps those in special measures.
	Secondly, it is important to put on to the face of the Bill that a broad and balanced curriculum must be preserved. It is vital that that concept is maintained. A good many head teachers in the system have their own hobby-horses and would like to do things differently, not least in secondary schools. Some feel strongly that less able or less motivated children should be given rather boring and tedious technical and practical work, with little exposure to academic subjects at which, given the opportunity, they might excel if they happen to be late developers. The concept of a broad and balanced curriculum is one which has been hard fought for over the past generation or so of teachers and schools. It is terribly important to retain it by writing it into the Bill.
	We felt that to allow something in the order of one-fifth of school time to be used for experiment was acceptable, but what is done must fall within the concept of the broad and balanced curriculum. Thus the main amendment in this grouping would allow schools to be innovative and to give certain children different kinds of experiences outwith the constraints of the national curriculum.
	Finally, I hope that any innovations will be closely monitored to ensure that they really do raise standards. We have all seen people riding high on their hobby-horses, promoting what at the time seemed to be frightfully good ideas. Those people become very enthusiastic; they go to conferences and get very excited about the notion. Ultimately, however, no one asks the question: were the children performing better and producing better work as a result of the introduction of the new idea? We do not want an education service that is full of gimmicks. We want one that genuinely provides ever-increasing high standards for all school children.

Baroness Walmsley: I support this group of amendments and wish to say something about teachers as professionals. The Government have said that they respect teachers as professionals and want to encourage them to behave as such, and they have introduced a number of initiatives to help teachers to develop their professionalism.
	One of the criteria of a professional is someone whose judgment can be trusted in his or her field of expertise. A second criterion is someone who will keep up with the latest research and the cutting edge of best practice in that field. What nonsense it would be, therefore, to tell teachers that they are professionals and then to tell some of them that they cannot innovate and to tell others that they have to ask a lot of other people before they can do so.
	All professionals innovate and conscientiously evaluate the results of those innovations in the interests of the people that they serve. For example, at the moment my dentist is evaluating a new piece of equipment for blasting my teeth with very fine bicarbonate of soda. In that kind of spirit, teachers are innovating all the time. It is important that all teachers should get the opportunity—unless there is a very good reason why they should not—to introduce at least 20 per cent innovation into the curriculum.
	For those reasons and many others, I support in particular substantive Amendment No. 15, which has been brought forward by my noble friend Lady Sharp of Guildford, and the paving amendments leading up to it.

Lord Dearing: I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and as the chairman of a committee that recently advised the Church of England on its schools. In commenting, I am assuming that Clause 2, in particular, applies to all schools, not only successful schools. That is important.
	I support the thrust of the comments that have been made. I cannot see that it is an effective way of doing business for a government department at the centre to take individual decisions for 20,000 schools about which it knows nothing. That is not an effective means of decision taking. If it is to be done conscientiously it will take an army—and I am not convinced that the army will do it well.
	I understand, and engage with, the Government in saying that they want to free up the process more. If I were a Minister, I would be worried about what the blighters might do if the whole 22,000 were let loose with a blanket authority. I would want a handle to be kept on it—but not by me at the centre of the 22,000.
	Mention has been made of local education authorities. They know these schools—it is their business to know these schools. It would make good management sense to use the expertise of LEAs and, in the case of church schools, the diocesan boards of education. They should be consulted, certainly, and perhaps they should initially approve proposals, because I am scared about what might happen if this is let loose and the final power is with the governing body. I would want to keep a handle on it.
	But I urge the Government to think again about how they can create the right balance between their view of "We must keep a grip on every decision" and letting 22,000 flowers bloom. I urge the Government to think again on that particular point.
	As to Clause 6, which concerns the curriculum and the issue of whether all schools or only successful schools should be allowed to innovate, we shall come to that on another occasion.

Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: There has been a long tradition in English education, stretching back almost to the beginning of the last century, that local education authorities and governing bodies run schools. The Department of Education and the old Board of Education were never fitted to take the roles of a Napoleonic education system. Suddenly, the Government have decided to change things. I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, said. Without making any nasty criticisms, I do not believe that the department has a tradition of doing this. Nor would I say that the model that exists in France, where it has been done, is necessarily ideal. In common with the noble Baronesses, Lady Sharp and Lady Perry, and many others—and a former chief inspector, Lord knows—I urge the Government to think again. They are biting off a bigger cake than they can chew. They will rue it in the end.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: I ask the Minister to ensure that, in her reply to the debate, she indicates exactly what the Government have in mind by way of innovation. We are all in favour of innovation in principle. We know that innovation does take place in schools. But clearly the Government have got something very particular in mind when they introduce a clause of this kind, which amounts to a power to facilitate innovation. In all the discussions we have had so far on this particular chapter of the Bill, the mystery remains of what exactly the Government have in mind by way of their hope for innovation. What kind of innovation do they expect?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: This has been an interesting beginning to the first day in Committee. Noble Lords have raised some interesting questions, which I shall attempt to address. Reference has also been made to later amendments.
	The clause is at the heart of our attempt to change the conditions under which schools and local education authorities can lead our education system. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has rightly pointed out—as, indeed, have other noble Lords—that there are many ways in which schools can innovate. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for putting some of those on the record. But the issue for us is much deeper. We believe that schools and local education authorities are in the best position—because we are able to understand what they are doing—to start looking at ways in which they can move education forward.
	Noble Lords have asked me to be specific. I shall try to be, but I shall inevitably refer to a couple of retrospective ideas. The purpose behind the clause is to say that we believe that there are ways in which schools are beginning to innovate and ways in which they would like to innovate but do not believe that they can because of legislation. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said that schools can get round the national curriculum. That, in a sense, raises the issue; it is about schools which have got round it.
	An example I have used before in your Lordships' House concerns the ability of schools to work more closely with further education and to look at work-place learning. We discovered that schools were doing this, but doing it despite the legislation. A more recent example—we are now in the later stages of the Bill—comes from my own experience of visiting a school not far from here. The head teacher said, "We were delighted to see that the childcare potential is now being recognised in this Bill because for me, as a head teacher, I have long wanted to do something that brought in the children and their families earlier to my school, specifically because I believe it would raise standards. But of course I could not do it".
	Different schools will have different ideas. That is the purpose of the clause. I cannot give the Committee a list of what schools may want to do. If we knew what they wanted to do specifically, and we could see the standard-raising effect, it would be in the Bill. This is simply about enabling schools to come forward with their ideas.
	We wish to put on record that we welcome the fact that schools can innovate. Nothing in the Bill affects the ability of schools to innovate as they already do, as noble Lords have described. The Bill applies only where schools are prevented from doing so because of legislation. In no way will the Bill attack the freedoms that schools have already.
	In theory, Amendment No. 1 would do away with the Secretary of State's role of checking and approving innovative projects. The effect would be that no statutory instrument would be placed, and that, in turn, would mean that there was no public record of the changes made. We believe that there should be accountability and the opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of the use of this power through the placing of statutory instruments. That is secured clearly by giving the role of making statutory instruments to the Secretary of State.
	In addition, without the involvement of the Secretary of State, schools and LEAs would in theory be free to change the law at will. It is essential that every proposal under the power to innovate receives scrutiny in the light of the best professional advice.
	Without the Secretary of State's involvement, we lose the bigger picture. It would be wrong to allow individual schools to determine what proposals they believe would benefit their pupils without regard to the effect on neighbouring schools and LEAs. Given the breadth of these powers, we believe that it is vital that we retain this broader view.
	The Secretary of State also provides protection for the vulnerable. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, and I will no doubt debate these issues in more detail, as will other noble Lords. I want to be clear that there are no circumstances in which we would want to approve any project that weakens the position of the vulnerable. Indeed, in determining whether or not a proposal raises standards, the Secretary of State will have regard to the need to raise standards for all children, including those with special educational needs.
	But we should also be clear that there is no reason why any innovative project from a school or from a local education authority would be any less likely to benefit children with special educational needs. Indeed, I very much hope that these proposals will lead to innovation for children with special educational needs. We should be encouraging any project that might lead to higher educational standards for this group of pupils.
	I turn to Amendment No. 15. As it stands, it would not allow schools or local education authorities to make any exemption from legislation. It would merely allow them to pursue innovative projects within the confines of existing law. As I have said, they are already able to do this and we would, of course, encourage them to do it.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, referred to the issue of "four-fifths of the time". Within her amendment that is a key part. There is no restriction on time in the national curriculum. So long as schools complete the programmes of study, they can take as long or as little time as they like and set the school day or term that they consider appropriate for their pupils.
	Perhaps I may take this opportunity to reassure the noble Baroness that we have addressed other points in the amendment. Guidance on the power to innovate will be made available to all schools and LEAs. I have placed a draft version of the document in the Library, but perhaps I may summarise its key points.
	The guidance currently covers eligibility, exemptions available, consultation criteria against which applications will be judged, the approval of proposals and the evaluation of projects. While we have no preconceived ideas about the sort of exemptions applicants would wish to seek, the Secretary of State would expect all schools applying for such freedom to demonstrate that they will continue to deliver a broad and balanced curriculum.
	Applicants are also required to consult those who are likely to be affected by the proposal. Where a school is the applicant, we would expect that to include the local education authority, as well as all those involved in the school, including parents and pupils, and other relevant parties.
	Schools will continue to be subject to Ofsted inspections and the accountability framework. Furthermore, they will be required to conduct their own evaluation of their project. We do not intend to rule out schools in special measures from the exemptions, as they are as entitled as any other school to attempt to raise standards and improve education. However, the Secretary of State will be able to make judgments on individual cases.
	That brings me back to my main point; namely, the absolute importance of the Secretary of State's role in the process and in safeguarding standards. Amendment No. 4 is at odds with our view that the LEA has a vital part to play and should be consulted whenever a school puts forward a proposal. I appreciate what the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has said about the paving nature of some of the amendments, but to deal with the amendment specifically, we believe that LEAs themselves and education action zones should be able to come forward with proposals.
	LEAs undoubtedly have a strategic role in innovation, but they also have a direct track record of success in this field. For example, in working with education action zones, in delivering literacy and numeracy strategies, and in turning round schools in special measures, LEAs have demonstrated their potential to have a real impact and make a real difference to standards in their schools.
	I want LEAs to be able to build on that experience and, where they have new ideas for innovative ways of raising standards in schools, to be able to come forward with proposals. Their role may be particularly important for projects involving collaboration between schools, where the LEA will be best placed to make that work. I can see no reason, therefore, to exclude other qualifying bodies from the powers under Chapter 1 if they can assist schools in innovating to raise standards. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will not press the amendment.
	Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 concern the role of the Secretary of State in relation to Wales. The Committee will not be surprised that I am concerned that the spirit of the amendment goes against the spirit of the devolution settlement, under which the National Assembly for Wales has devolved authority for most educational matters apart from determining teachers' pay and conditions.
	It would seem strange on the face of it if, where a proposal and the power to innovate relate to a matter for which the National Assembly had devolved responsibility, the National Assembly was not allowed to determine whether it believed it would lead to higher educational standards for children in Wales.
	Indeed, under the amendment the National Assembly would still be required to lay an order, but would be able to do so only if, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, a proposal would raise the educational standards for children in England and in Wales. The amendment would also extend the test of a proposal in both England and Wales by requiring that a proposal contribute to the educational standards of pupils in both countries. Naturally, we would hope that proposals would have the potential to be applied more widely both in England and in Wales, but there may be proposals that relate specifically to the circumstances of schools in England or in Wales. I believe that this is a sensible approach to take and that it is in line with the spirit of the devolution settlement.
	I now turn to Amendments Nos. 14 and 157. Their effect would be to define the word "term" in two places in the Bill. I have listened to the arguments carefully, but remain convinced that it is not necessary to include such a definition in the Bill. I, too, am aware of what Mr Price has been doing, and we have been in discussion both with him and with the Local Government Association.
	The word "term" has a clear, ordinary meaning in common usage which will determine its interpretation in the Bill and which is in line with the interpretation sought by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. Clause 1 includes a number of definitions which are useful for ensuring that this chapter of the Bill can be understood. The word "term", however, does not appear in this chapter, so this definition would not mean anything in this particular context.
	The amendment to Clause 37 would apply the definition to the responsibility to determine term dates in Clause 31. However, Clause 31 sets out not only a responsibility to determine term dates, but also a responsibility to determine the dates of holidays. It follows that there is a clear duty to determine the dates of half-term holidays and any faith or occasional days. Bank holidays are, of course, determined nationally under separate arrangements, and rights in relation to elections—a topical subject—are determined under separation arrangements relating to representation of the people.
	I am clear, therefore, that there is no gap. I am happy to place on record our belief that there is no lack of clarity in this legislation. The duties to determine when children should and should not be at school are clear. This should not cause any problems for local education authorities or for schools. I hope that that assures the noble Baroness that the position is as she would like it to be, and that her amendments are therefore unnecessary.
	I believe that the power to innovate offers an exciting opportunity for schools and LEAs to come forward with new ideas to raise standards. I hope that with the reassurances I have given, together with the draft guidance that I have circulated, noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.

Baroness Blatch: I am afraid that I am even more concerned about the Bill as a result of the Minister's response. She made no reference to a central question posed by myself and many other speakers. Where will the civil servants come from? Who will monitor and evaluate every single application? Who will deal with the minutiae? This will either be done properly, or it will be done in a cursory way. It will be time-consuming—I would argue that it will be time-wasteful—and it will be very costly. The Minister made no mention whatever of those matters.
	The Minister said that these clauses were at the heart of the debate. We all agree about the aim of the early clauses of the Bill; namely, that schools should be free to innovate. We accept the importance of that. The best schools do it as a matter of course. A school is a dynamic; it should constantly seek ways to raise standards. There is no argument about that. That is the heart of the debate—not the civil servants, the bureaucracy or the minutiae of a terribly bureaucratic system, but the fact that we want to support schools in their efforts to innovate in order to raise standards.
	The Minister went on to say that the issue was much deeper, but there was no depth in any of the arguments that she used to counter much of what we said. She argued that schools should be free to work more closely with further education. I do not know where the Minister has been, but the schools that I know already do that. There has been a great deal of collaboration with FE. In fact, schools in my area also work with higher education through masterclasses for bright children, visiting professors coming to schools and children visiting the universities. Collaboration with further and higher education does not need to be exempt from regulation.
	The Minister also talked about pre-five education. Schools up and down the land are working with playgroups, mother and toddler groups and nursery classes in a more formal and integral part of the school system. I do not understand what the problem is there. In the middle of all that, the Minister said that she could not give precise examples. I am not sure that there are any. We have touched on those areas in which we think that legislation could be relaxed and where some freedom should be given to schools. The Minister's arguments do not stand up against the points that we have made.
	What legislation stands in the way of schools working with FE? What legislation stands in the way of them working with higher education? We know that we have legislation coming on 14 to 19 education, which will make more formal arrangements for children to partake of mainstream education both in mainstream schools and with further education. Those issues will be dealt with in that legislation. The Minister does not have a strong argument on that point.
	The Minister went on to say that there should be accountability. Schools live in a goldfish bowl these days. They are accountable. A great deal of information is put into the public domain about the performance of schools. They are responsible to their governors and their parents. They have annual meetings and periodic statutory consultation processes. As the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, said, the local education authority also knows a great deal about its local schools. More formally, schools are also highly accountable through the Ofsted system. The argument about accountability will not wash.
	I have no reason to doubt the noble Baroness when she says that the Government believe in protection for the vulnerable, particularly for those with special educational needs, because I know that she means it. That is such a fundamental point that it has to be written on the face of the Bill. I am sure that many noble Lords feel strongly about that and will wish to return to the issue.
	The answer to every school's prayer is that the Government are going to send them guidance. Our schools receive guidance by the hour. Our head teachers are up to saturation point. Every day when they pick up the bundle of post from behind the door, their head hangs low, because they should be using their energy and all the time at their disposal to get on with the business of teaching and helping to develop their young people in their classrooms, but instead they have to read missives from the DfEE. I cannot believe that that is put forward as a serious argument against our proposals.
	The noble Baroness also said that where the school was the applicant, we would expect it to include the LEA. I have some concerns about the role that the LEA would play, but it is right that it should be informed and consulted. I am more worried about the suggestion that the LEA should be the determining factor. We shall come to that on later amendments.
	The Minister has not mentioned staffing at the department or the costs of such a process and how it works. She went on to talk about education action zones. They are innovative by nature. That is why they were set up—to go outside mainstream education and explore ways of raising standards, particularly in the inner cities, although that has been extended to rural areas now. Again, I do not understand why such schools need to move outside the existing legislation.
	The Minister also talked about collaboration between schools. What is there in law to stop that? My air of absolute frustration may have been detected in my response to the Minister's comments on the amendments. All I can say is that we should free up schools. That does not mean schools doing as they like, as the Minister argued. We should set the framework within which they can explore and innovate with the aim of raising standards for their children. We should allow them to work with governors and parents, constantly exploring ways to raise standards. There is no worry about a repeat of William Tyndale. It could not happen today. Too much is known about what goes on in schools. They live in a goldfish bowl and are openly accountable. Twenty years ago, the department boasted about the secret garden. I remember the daily battle in the department about control. Let the reins go. Set the framework, give the professionals their head and let them get on with it. Self-evaluation, Ofsted and public information are all there as a constraint on schools doing what they like, to use the Minister's words.
	I do not remember the Minister being particularly critical of the detail of my amendment, although I shall have to read her comments. That we shall return to the issue is not in doubt. The Minister made some specific comments about the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. I have sympathy with all those amendments, but I do not want to deny the noble Baroness the opportunity to come back and counter the Minister's remarks if she wishes to do so. I hope that the Minister will think again about putting in place a labyrinthine system that is second nature to the department, because it will simply debilitate the energy and resources of people who have better things to do. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 1 [Purpose and interpretation of Chapter 1]:

Baroness Walmsley: moved Amendment No. 2:
	Page 1, line 6, at beginning insert "Subject to subsection (1A) below,"

Baroness Walmsley: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 9, 21 and 23. The amendments would ensure that the use of new powers by schools was subject to consultation with local education authorities. The Bill allows maintained schools to apply directly to the Secretary of State for exemption from any requirement of education legislation, for example on the curriculum, that is not otherwise provided for in Chapter 2 of Part 1. Clause 4 does not even require the LEA to be consulted.
	Local councils have a strategic role to play in promoting and maintaining innovation. The amendments would ensure that local councils were recognised on the face of the Bill by making them statutory consultees when the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales make an order to suspend statutory requirements. That would ensure that one school could not innovate at the expense of other schools in the area without the agreement of the local authority. The amendments would ensure that the power to innovate was translated into greater freedoms and flexibilities for councils as well as for schools, drawing LEAs into the innovation agenda.
	Local authorities already have a track record in this field, so it is illogical to exclude them from what we hope will be some of the most exciting advances in educational standards in the future. For example, education action zones, the delivery of literacy and numeracy strategies and the turnaround of schools in special measures are all ways in which local councils have already taken a lead and made a difference in raising standards at local level.
	Already seven councils have piloted innovative and creative new projects to increase community involvement in schools. These include the establishment of rural academies and the co-location of a range of facilities serving the wider community on the school site.
	These projects illustrate how councils can respond to the innovation challenge and use the opportunities to raise educational standards, particularly by joining up education and other council responsibilities. It would be wrong to suggest that local authorities would stand in the way of effective innovation. Since the Second World War, local government has led the main examples of innovation, such as the delegation of resources to schools, parental rights, delegation of staffing to schools, community education, middle schools and comprehensive education.
	Today of all days—the day of the local elections—noble Lords of all parties are aware of how hard it can be to persuade high-quality, busy people to devote their time to the often thankless task of public service. How foolish it would be, therefore, to take away from them the right to be involved in the exciting and stimulating decisions that are ahead when, one hopes, an improved version of this Bill eventually becomes law. Indeed, it would be wrong not to consult LEAs when they retain residual responsibility for school improvement. Section 5 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 gives LEAs a duty to promote high standards in the education of children. Part 6 of the Bill emphasises LEAs' duty to ensure that the national curriculum is taught. Therefore, LEAs must be involved in innovation through consultation.
	The Government have said much about deregulation in the Bill. However, shifting primary legislation to regulations made by secondary legislation is not deregulation. Deregulation occurs only when primary legislation sets out the principles and allows local bodies, schools and LEAs to get on and do the job.

Baroness Blatch: As I said in speaking to the first group of amendments, I believe in the importance of letting local authorities know precisely what is going on in their areas, as that might have a very real impact on the provision that they make.
	I tabled Amendment No. 24, which is in this group, to insert a new paragraph on page 3. The provision is concerned with applications for orders under Clause 2. We know that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, is with us at least in spirit on the provision. In speaking to Amendment No. 1, she said that the Liberal Democrats "would expect" such consultation to occur. However, I think that we need rather stronger provision, and there is a strong case for including it in the Bill. LEAs should be statutory consultees. There is, as I said, a tension in regard to the legal position. In law, LEAs have a responsibility to raise standards, whereas the Bill does not even require that they be statutory consultees. I think that there is a good argument for accepting the amendments.

Lord Dearing: I rise very briefly to support the preceding arguments. I believe that good chief education officers have a great deal to contribute to the development of thinking in schools. If they have a statutory right to be consulted, they can contribute without hindering. I hope that the Government will feel able to respond to the amendments.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The powers in this clause are intended to ensure that we are able to support schools and LEAs with innovative ideas that could not otherwise be implemented. The powers are in no way intended to increase or centralise power in the Secretary of State's hands. As Members of the Committee will realise, the powers can be used only to respond to the innovative standards-raising proposals put forward by schools and LEAs.
	The Secretary of State of course will make an informed decision as to whether to approve proposals on the basis of information provided by the applicant, which will include the outcome of consultation with local bodies. My right honourable friend the Minister for School Standards has already provided in another place an assurance that guidance issued under Clause 4(2) should refer to the need for the consultation to include the LEA when a school, and not the LEA, is the applicant. I am happy to repeat that assurance. Indeed, I have now made available in the Library of the House an outline draft of this guidance. Paragraph 10, on page 2, states:
	"In all cases where a school is the applicant we would expect them to have consulted their own LEA . . . If an LEA is itself the applicant neighbouring LEAs should be consulted where the proposal is likely to have a wider impact than the LEA itself".

Baroness Blatch: The Minister seems to be saying that the department will always expect applicants to have consulted the LEA. Some applicants, however, may not have done so. Would it not be fairer to include the requirement in legislation, rather than to throw back those applications with the statement that consultation is expected? Maintained schools in local authority areas will almost never be able to begin the process without letting the local authority know. Why not make the requirement part of the process? The Minister seems to lump LEAs with every other body. One of those bodies could be a group of local shops. Indeed, there may even be a case for informing local tradesmen of certain matters, such as when children are taken out of school for educational purposes. LEAs are a fairly important part of the process. This group of amendments proposes only that they should be informed.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I agree with the noble Baroness that they are extremely important, just as parents, pupils and teachers are extremely important to schools. Although the consultation requirement is not included in primary legislation, I think that the statutory guidance provides considerable reassurance. However, at this stage, I am fully prepared to consider the point further. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Walmsley: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 3:
	Page 1, line 6, after "to" insert "promote and"

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: In moving Amendment No. 3, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 5. Clause 1 states:
	"The purpose of this Chapter is to facilitate the implementation by qualifying bodies of innovative projects".
	Amendment No. 3 would change that to read, "to promote and facilitate" implementation.
	"Facilitate" is a rather neutral and passive word. In replying to our debate on the overall innovation issue, the Minister said that we wanted to be positive and to enable schools to innovate and improve performance. In that context, the word "promote" is as suitable as the word "facilitate". We believe that it is important to be positive and to promote innovation. We should encourage schools to innovate, and we should say so right at the beginning of the Bill.
	Amendment No. 5 is perhaps the more substantive one. In replying on my Amendment No. 4, the Minister seemed to imply that I was forgetting about devolution. Perhaps I should have referred to Amendment No. 5 with Amendment No. 4, as the former removes the Secretary of State from subsection (1)(a) completely. We return to the issue of whether the Secretary of State really has to approve each project. The fact is that the department cannot micro-manage these matters. In replying to me, the Minister said that public scrutiny is not only vital but must be put on the record. She also said that the proposals will be in guidance which will have to be approved by Parliament. Will every proposal have to be laid before Parliament? The degree of centralisation involved in all of this seems absurd.
	The Minister went on to say that it would be wrong for individual schools to determine what innovation they think would be in their interests. But what on earth does the department know about neighbourhood schools and what the people in those neighbourhoods think? It is much more important that schools consult parents, local neighbourhoods and local education authorities. The reference in Clause 1 to the opinion of the Secretary of State demonstrates the extent of centralisation and micro-management, and that reference is unnecessary. Indeed, the Minister would be as hard-pressed as anyone else to cite one example of innovation that has not already been dealt with in legislation. This comes back to what I said on Second Reading; namely, that most of the Bill is unnecessary and a waste of parliamentary time when there are other important matters that we ought to discuss. Nevertheless, the Government have given the Bill to us with 210 clauses and 22 schedules and we shall jolly well make them pay for it!
	It is absurd that the Secretary of State has to have an opinion on each individual proposal. We believe that that should be eliminated from the face of the Bill. I beg to move.

Baroness Perry of Southwark: I briefly reinforce what has been said about Amendment No. 5. There is a fundamental disagreement between what the Government propose and what we are trying to say. The Government propose micro-management on the part of the Secretary of State or people in the department—one hopes with advice from Ofsted—as regards approving or disapproving every single scheme which is submitted. Our amendments suggest that the Secretary of State shall lay down the things which schools can do, not in the form of a detailed list but in terms of the appropriate objectives of innovation. Several Members of the Committee suggested that the Secretary of State should lay down the things which schools cannot do such as remove provision for children with special needs. But if the Secretary of State were to lay down the objectives of innovation and the things which schools could not do, why not just let them get on with it?

Baroness Blatch: I add to the comments of my noble friend. We are back to the fundamental point; that is, that the man in Whitehall does not know best as regards determining the way forward for every school in the country. However, we are in Committee and we are having to table "what if" amendments. If neither Amendment No. 1 nor Amendment No. 15—those are fundamental amendments—is accepted, what then? If Amendment No. 5, which seeks to delete the words,
	"in the opinion of the Secretary of State",
	were successful, it is my view—I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, agrees with me—that a measure such as that contained in Amendments Nos. 1 or 15 would have to be put in its place. Clearly there would have to be some framework within which schools would work. My difficulty is the following. I should like to support the amendment as we do not believe that the opinion of the Secretary of State should prevail. However, if the Government have their way and the scheme is implemented in the way that the Government would like, I should like to add the words "or the Chief Inspector" as that would lessen the workload of the Secretary of State and his department and also the chief inspector is rather better informed about every school in the land. For some time the chief inspector through Ofsted has on a regular basis visited every single maintained school. I believe that the chief inspector is better equipped to understand the matters that we are discussing. If one allowed the chief inspector under certain criteria automatically to give schools the right to innovate that would lessen the incredible workload that will be put in train by the Bill.
	If the Minister says that the Government would expect the Secretary of State to liaise with the chief inspector in order to be informed about schools, that would simply compound the system about which we have heard and which we understand the Bill proposes. As I say, I should like to support the removal of the words,
	"in the opinion of the Secretary of State",
	but, if that is not possible, my Amendment No. 6, which refers to the chief inspector, would at least be helpful.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, for telling me that I shall pay for the Bill. It is an interesting first Bill for me to take through all its stages. The Committee is being indulgent in trying to ensure that I address all the questions that are raised.
	As we are back at the heart of the Bill I make two or three comments by way of an overview. First, I gave retrospective examples. I believe that I said that they were retrospective. The purpose of the power is to seek projects of which we are not yet aware. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, said that we should lay down what schools cannot do. However, it is precisely in the area of what schools cannot do that we are trying to look for new ideas. We have an education system of which all Members of the Chamber are rightly proud but we also know that it does not perform as well as it might with all our children. Within that system we seek to enable the people who know our children—teachers and local education authorities—to suggest ways in which they believe our legislation could get in the way of supporting those children. That does not detract from all the existing innovative ways in which schools can develop. As I said, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, referred to many of those. We do not seek in any way to constrain what schools can do already. We simply seek to add something extra. We seek to say to schools and to local education authorities, "If, in the course of looking at how best you can serve our children, you say to us, 'We think that we have something special which is worth exploring'"—

Baroness Blatch: I intervene as this is Committee stage and we shall have no other opportunity to be iterative. The noble Baroness said that we were addressing the heart of the Bill. However, she has just said that the Government are merely trying to introduce more flexibility in case there is something they have not thought of. She also said that she could not think of an example of that. If the noble Baroness cannot think of an example—I gave a long but not exhaustive list of ways in which schools can innovate—what on earth is the point of all this and why is such a strong defence—almost a stone wall—being mounted against what I regard as sensible ideas to allow innovation to take place and to set schools free to innovate without this absolutely strapped around system of bureaucracy?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: This is not a stone wall. I am trying to explain that there are issues connected with the way in which we want our schools to take forward education. We want to enable them to think more fully about such matters. The measure is at the heart of the Bill. We are not trying to do anything other than allow schools and local education authorities the right to be creative and the right to come to us to seek change because we believe fundamentally that change should be led by our schools and local education authorities. That is the opposite of a centralising approach.
	I turn to the specific amendments before us. I turn first to Amendment No. 3. By introducing the Bill—and giving the Secretary of State the power to respond to schools and LEAs—we have already demonstrated our commitment to promoting as well as facilitating innovation. The promotion of innovation is an aim that the Government share and the Bill in its very essence provides for it.
	But to add the words proposed in Amendment No. 3 would if anything increase the role of the Secretary of State in the process. At present, the power is intended merely to allow the Secretary of State to respond to proposals from schools and not to initiate her own. The current balance between the role of the Secretary of State in responding to proposals and schools or LEAs in coming forward with them rightly places the emphasis on promoting innovation at a school or a local education authority level so it is in the hands of those who know what works best.
	Of course, we want to do whatever we can to support schools and local education authorities in coming forward with innovative proposals. We decided to set up the new innovation unit which will be established later this year. We hope that that will be important in creating the right climate for innovation and in supporting teachers to develop and share their best ideas. Therefore, I can reassure the noble Baroness that we are at one in believing that the Government should promote innovation. I reassure her that we shall be doing so. I hope that she will agree that it is not necessary in the context of this clause to change the legislation in order to secure that result.
	Given the unintended consequences of the amendment and the reassurances that I have given about the Government's commitment to support and encourage schools and local education authorities in coming forward with proposals, I hope that the noble Baroness will agree to withdraw Amendment No. 3.
	I turn to Amendment No. 5. I agree with the noble Baroness that innovation in our schools should not be the preserve of the Secretary of State. Schools are and will continue to be free to innovate within the law in all that they do, without any involvement from the Secretary of State or any other central body. I reassure her that this chapter in no way reduces schools' and LEAs' existing scope to innovate. Only when such innovation is prevented or hindered by provisions in education legislation would it be necessary for schools to apply under the power to innovate.
	However, if we are to have confidence in our ability to respond effectively to schools and LEAs in a wide range of circumstances, the breadth of the power is necessary. What we are creating is a power to enable the Secretary of State to respond to schools and LEAs where their proposals require the temporary "disapplication" of legislation to work. That is not about centralising power in the Secretary of State's hands. If we are going to give schools and LEAs the freedom to pilot new ways of raising standards, there must be some safeguards and some parliamentary process to ensure that projects that are put forward will contribute to the raising of educational standards. In that context, it is important that schools know the law.
	I therefore believe that the role of the Secretary of State is absolutely essential. The Secretary of State must be able to make a judgment before making an order that, in her opinion, in light of all the available evidence and, where necessary, following consultation with the chief inspector—I shall discuss that later—a project will contribute to the raising of educational standards.
	As I have already said, the Secretary of State's opinion also provides an additional protection for vulnerable children and means that she would not make any order where she believed that that would be detrimental to the interests of those children. The proposal is not about the Secretary of State acting on her own or ignoring the views of schools and LEAs. But I believe that it is essential that every proposal receives independent scrutiny in the light of the best available professional advice.
	While I therefore do not believe that removing the opinion of the Secretary of State would be helpful, I am ready to discuss whether there may be other helpful ways of strengthening the protections that are already in place in the legislation. I hope that in the light of that, the noble Baroness will not press the amendment.
	I turn to Amendment No. 6. Clause 2(3) already requires the Secretary of State to consult the chief inspector before making an order. I would expect the Secretary of State to make full use of the chief inspector's expertise—the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, suggested this—where appropriate, in considering proposals from schools and LEAs. However, it is important that we are clear about the fact that it must be the Secretary of State who lays an order. We must not be in a position where the law is in doubt in relation to any school. There must be a clear statement that is publicly available to all that makes clear each individual's rights and duties. That means that whenever an exemption is granted, a statutory instrument must be made. That is quite clearly a role for the Secretary of State in relation to England and for the National Assembly for Wales in relation to Wales.
	I also believe that there should be accountability and the opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of those statutory instruments. That is again clearly secured by giving the role of making the statutory instrument to the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales.
	Given those arguments, I hope that Members of the Committee will accept that the Secretary of State must be the one to lay an order. It would be strange to have an alternative decision-maker at that stage and it might involve questioning the role of Ofsted. Of course I agree with the noble Baroness that the Secretary of State should, wherever necessary, take into account the chief inspector's views. But I am not sure of the benefit of adding him as an alternative source of opinion prior to the final exercise of discretion. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will not press the amendment.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I cannot say that I am totally convinced by the Minister's arguments. For example, as regards using the word "promote", she said, "Yes, of course we are promoting innovation; that is what we are about". However, she also said that she does not want that in the Bill because it would involve centralising. Why? Perhaps it was lucky that the amendments were grouped; at first I did not think so. That is precisely why we want to remove from a later subsection the power involving the opinion of the Secretary of State. We feel that the concept of promoting is more positive but we do not want the Secretary of State to feel that she should do the promoting. We feel that promotion needs to be in the general atmosphere and that it should devolve downwards. We have already argued that it is up to each individual school to innovate.
	Nor do I buy the argument that the Secretary of State needs to have the confidence to respond. The argument was that the Secretary of State needs that power in order to protect the vulnerable. However, the Bill's provisions in that regard are incredible. Clause 2(1)(a) refers to,
	"conferring on the applicant exemption from any requirement imposed by education legislation".
	I stress the phrase, "any requirement". If someone suggested that we should suspend special educational needs legislation, we should not of course do so. That is why we need the opinion of the Secretary of State. We come back to the central question.
	When one talks to heads and principals of colleges, the one point about which they want a little flexibility is in relation to the national curriculum. That is one reason why the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, and I tabled Amendment No. 15. That is the one area in which heads and principals feel constrained. One might say that they do not need to feel constrained, but there is a degree of such a feeling. Perhaps during our discussion on the Bill we can pass on the message, "You need not feel constrained. You can go off and, so long as you can fulfil the requirements, spend your time doing anything else". That would be splendid. However, it underlines the general feeling that we do not need such legislation.
	I am not convinced by the Minister's arguments. I shall read her speech very carefully and we shall probably return to these issues on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.]

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 6:
	Page 1, line 8, after "State" insert "or the Chief Inspector"

Baroness Blatch: I want to respond to a point that the Minister made about the amendment. She said what I feared—and, in fact, what I predicted—she would say; that is, that the chief inspector will of course be consulted. That will duplicate all of the efforts. We will have the Secretary of State, who does not know all of the schools locally, speaking to the chief inspector, who does know all of the schools locally. If the chief inspector can say—this is consistent with the proposed wording—that a proposition from a school or an applicant contributes to the raising of educational standards, that should be the end of the matter. That should not be second-guessed by the Secretary of State, although technically it would be. The order would be laid technically because it is simply a matter of officials laying the order in the House.
	I am going to test the Government's nerve on this matter. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
	4.57 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 6) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 75; Not-Contents, 133.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	[Amendments Nos. 7 to 9 not moved.]

Lord Peston: moved Amendment No. 10:
	Page 1, line 11, at end insert—
	"( ) In this Bill "innovation" and "innovative projects" refer inter alia to—
	(a) teaching methods, and
	(b) access by teachers and pupils to computers and information and communication technology."

Lord Peston: In speaking to Amendment No. 10, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady David, I begin by making some general remarks. Because I did not speak to any of the earlier amendments, I hope that Members of the Committee do not think that I was not sympathetic to what was said. But, if we are to get the Committee stage of the Bill finished before Whitsun, I do not believe that we should all pop up every minute to say, "Oh, yes, we agree with the noble Lord". In that sense, in relation to the previous group of amendments, I was particularly pleased to hear the Minister say that she would talk to noble Lords opposite about some of their concerns.
	The amendments tabled in the names of my noble friend Lady David and myself are, in every case, exploratory. We simply seek clarification and, therefore, the amendments amount to questions. I do not know about other noble Lords, but I have been in this House for a great many years and find this Bill particularly difficult to understand. Quite honestly, there are large sections of it that I do not understand at all. I do not know what the Bill is saying, let alone whether I agree with it. Therefore, one reason for tabling some rather tedious amendments is in order to be a good pupil and to learn something.
	I turn to one or two other general points. Anyone who is interested in innovation and who knows about the history of education will know that, throughout our history, innovation in our education system has come from teachers in schools. It has come from local education authorities and not from the department. I speak as someone who, for a long time, was the Minister's chief adviser in the department.
	My own general judgment is that the way in which to help innovation in our country, and, indeed, the way in which to help education more generally, is for the department to adopt as its maxim, "Let's not get in the way". However, as we discuss innovation, I am concerned that the department seems to want to get in the way. That is what it believes it can do to help. The word "facilitate" appears but, from my reading of the Bill, the department seems to be interested in the opposite—the antonym—of "facilitate". However, that could simply be down to my ignorance because, I repeat, I do not fully understand the Bill.
	My general aim regarding this section of the Bill is to try to understand what counts as an "innovation". The reason that my noble friend and I have approached the matter in a rather different way from opposition Peers is that, instead of looking at generalities, we want to look at specifics. In doing so, I have in mind one other difference: I believe that there is a valid distinction between what a school can propose and what it can do. I had always assumed that what went on in a school, subject to various broad rules, was up to the head teacher and the teachers to decide. What puzzles me partly about the Bill is that that seems to be called into question now.
	I am still dealing with my general remarks. The Minister that teachers should know the law. I admit that that had never occurred to me in all my life, both as a pupil, teacher and an adviser at the department. If that is now the Government's position, I believe that this matter is much more serious than Members of the Committee opposite have said. It seems ridiculous to me that there should be the notion that before anything is done one had better find out beforehand whether it is legal. I cannot believe that the department really believes that to be the case.
	I turn now to the set of examples which I would like the Committee to begin with and my Amendment No. 10. It states that innovation should include teaching methods and, within that, it should include access to computers, IT and that kind of thing. First, I want reassurance that innovation does include them. Secondly, I would like reassurance that that has nothing to do with the department. I take quite a specific example. Teachers may decide that they would rather teach using Powerpoint than blackboard and chalk. I would regard that as highly innovative. It was suggested to me at university that I might use that method, particularly as I never wrote legibly on the board and it was thought that the students might learn something if I used computer methods. It would never have occurred to me to ask for permission at the university to do that. I would like to be reassured by the Minister that no teacher would ever have to ask permission to do so.
	More generally, as regards IT teaching, I believe that most of the methods for teaching languages in our schools are out of date and highly ineffective. The result is that many students get very good marks in what was called the General Schools Certificate in my day, but have no facility with the language at all. Modern teaching methods would use modern computer methods. For example, I am trying to learn Italian. I do not do that by looking for a teacher to teach me. I have got tapes, CDs and videos. I interact with the whole system and I learn. I agree that at my age, every time I learn to ask how to get a train from Orvieto to Rome, I forget how to ask what is the price of a room. If I can order a first course in a restaurant I forget about how to order wine. So it is always one step forward and one step back, but at least I am learning something.
	My point here is that if teachers wish to use that kind of computer method in schools, it is clearly an innovation. But in what sense do we need legislation for that kind of activity and in what sense do we need the department to be involved? Similarly, as a book addict, of course I use books for all kinds of things. But I know full well that if I wish to acquire information my method is now on-line in many cases and via the computer, and a search engine. It is quite a good way of teaching oneself different things.
	If schools began to do that as the norm, in my ordinary use of English I would regard it as an innovation. But what it has to do with legislation is beyond me. I accept that I may be wrong: legislation may be required, but I cannot remotely see why that should be the case.
	I put to the Committee the general question whether I am right in believing that these areas are innovative in the correct use of the English language. Am I not also right that this is something that should be happening or ought to happen, and does not require the Minister, the Secretary of State herself or even my noble friend, excellent though she is, to get involved? Am I not right in saying that we ought to stay out of these matters rather than the other way round?
	We might well be interested in the diffusion of best practice, which is quite a different question. My best method for improving diffusion would be to get rid of Ofsted, which is unfortunately one of the biggest disasters to hit the education system of our country, introduced by Members of the House opposite. I would restore Her Majesty's Inspectorate at a shot. Indeed, if my noble friend would like a little advice, an amendment to this Bill in one clause to get rid of Ofsted and bring back Her Majesty's Chief Inspector, plus others, would do more good for education than almost anything else I can think of.
	To summarise the position, I am simply looking for what counts as innovation, using this amendment as a specific example of whether I am right that it counts and then ask why it requires all the parts of the Bill to let it happen. I beg to move.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I am delighted that the noble Lord is making these inquiries. If he made a few more of schools he would discover that they are doing precisely the kinds of things that he is suggesting that they should do. It is a very good idea to probe, as the noble Lord is doing, to get at the root of what is meant by innovation here.

Baroness Blatch: I, too, welcome the amendment for that very reason. I believe that we are putting the Government on the spot. They have no ideas of their own and cannot think of anything. There is no definition of innovation. The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and his noble friend Lady David, serve a purpose.
	Incidentally, the two subjects covered by this amendment are both within my list of things that could be done within the existing law. The noble Lord made a much more important point en passant in addressing the amendment. He referred to teachers having to be conscious every minute of the day as to whether what they are doing is within the law. My view is that until now they have not stopped to think about that, but simply got on with running the schools and teaching the children. I believe that this Bill will make them do just that. There will be a constant looking over the shoulder and wondering whether what one is doing is lawful. Time will be spent by the schools making inquiries as to whether they can teach in a particular way or use a particular form of technology.
	The noble Lord made some points about technology. When I studied A-level history I remember making marvellous use of tapes prepared by the best historians in the world. One would listen to three or four eminent historians interacting with each other with the student listening and interacting with the discussions and the teacher. That can now be taken a great deal further. In preparation for further and, particularly, higher education, the student can be left unsupervised by a teacher with the properly organised use of technology. I do not believe that that is outside the law. As the noble Lord has done, I query fundamentally whether we need these early amendments and whether we should do more to encourage and promote innovation—to use the word of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp—in our schools and exhort them to do so, but not to put this raft of legislation in their way.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I agree with everything that noble Lords have said about encouraging innovation in schools, and about encouraging schools to use the innovation that they are already able to accomplish. I believe that we are of one mind on that point.
	I am conscious of the point made by my noble friend Lord Peston about not getting in the way of such innovation. That is a good maxim in many cases. However, I return to the central point that I am trying to make; namely, that we seek to assist schools that have found something that they wish to do, but which we are preventing them from doing. We hope to enable those schools that want to explore whether the removal of that prevention could assist them. That is the nub of the matter.
	I did not mean to suggest that teachers should know the law, and bear it in mind every minute of the day. If we are to suspend legislation for a school, it is important that we do so properly. It must be done by statutory instrument via the Secretary of State so that the law is clear. Perhaps I may take the case of special educational needs, which is something very dear to noble Lords' hearts. It is important that our educational institutions understand the law as it relates to students who have special educational needs. If we were to suspend any kind of law in another case, we would need to be clear in that respect. That is the point I make; not that I expect our teachers to spend their time worrying about the law.
	I know that this is a problem for some noble Lords, but we do not have any preconceived ideas of the kind of exemptions that applicants may seek. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Peston, and to the noble Baroness, Lady David, for helping us to explore this important issue. I should tell my noble friend that the use of Powerpoint and of white boards—great innovations in schools—is most important. We must enable our schools to use new technology to its fullest and greatest extent.
	I should tell the Committee that I have ministerial responsibility for ICT in schools. I am greatly heartened by the work that we are accomplishing to enable schools to go forward in this field. That includes providing as many teachers as we can with lap-tops to facilitate the use of new technology, and thereby support them in their work. We also provide support in the classroom to enable students to learn. In that way, teaching and learning will be enhanced. I accept what my noble friend said about such innovations: they are useful if, like me, you are unable to write on a blackboard in a way that anyone could possibly understand.
	My noble friend also talked about languages. As noble Lords will know from previous debates, I can talk for England on the subject of languages in schools. However, I accept that we can use many different ways of supporting our students in a diverse variety of languages, especially by using new technology.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, talked about her experiences when studying history. She told us about listening to tapes and joining in with the interaction between historians. Through the introduction of new technology, it is to be hoped that students will ultimately be able to watch—and, perhaps, interact—with some of our great teachers and lecturers right across the world. Indeed, perhaps they will even be able to engage in direct conversations with, say, a school in France on the subject of geography or history; in other words, with the use of new technology, they may be able to participate in the process of language learning by taking part in discussions in other countries.
	We have great enthusiasm for, and are working towards all such developments. They do not require the power to innovate. However, as we explore these new ways of approaching technology and consider the way in which we want teaching and learning to improve, there may be something that we could do to help and support schools, or education authorities, and enable them to do it in an even better way. That may apply to a particular way in which we are teaching or learning in schools. We are simply saying that we are not prescribing that; we want to look for it. Where schools believe that they have found it, we want them to be able to come forward and propose to us—

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: Perhaps I may put this to the Minister. Is the noble Baroness not worried that in passing this legislation many schools that are currently engaging in these activities as a matter of course will feel that they must now have permission to continue with them? That is the worrying aspect of the matter. Indeed, rather than encouraging innovation, this Bill may stultify it. Everyone will be writing letters to the Department for Education and Skills, but they will not receive a response for about six months. The whole process could go on for ever.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: During my time in the department I have not heard of anyone having to wait six months for a response from the Department for Education and Skills. I pay tribute to the officials who work incredibly hard on our behalf to ensure that they respond within set and very strict timetables. I hope that Members of the Committee will recognise that if you write to the department you will receive a reply within the allotted time. I wish to place that on the record.
	I understand the point that the noble Baroness has made, but that suggests that we would somehow use this power to prevent schools from carrying out current innovations. We all recognise that schools may need to be encouraged to innovate in ways that are currently allowed through better understanding. My hope is that the innovation unit will play a part in that process by supporting teachers to spread best practice. Where legislation is halted for a fixed period, it is simply a matter of ensuring that, after four years, schools may apply for a possible extension of three years. We should be allowed to do that.
	I turn to my noble friend's question about all the activities he described. If there were something within the power to innovate that could be implemented, schools would be able to apply on that basis. However, many of the activities that he mentioned are currently practised by our schools.

Lord Peston: I thank my noble friend for her informative reply, which I shall summarise. I believe she said that the sort of activities that I described did not require permission from this Bill and the Secretary of State because they are happening, and they will continue in that way. Sadly, I suppose that I must admit to being a rather thick pupil because I believe my noble friend used the expression, "Well, what requires the powers to innovate?" I know that it is not easy to answer that question, but I have to ask it. Indeed, we shall have to face it at some time.
	What, specifically, are we missing here? This features in the next and the following amendment, where, again, I am fairly certain that I shall be told that such activities do not require the powers to innovate. My question remains: what requires the powers to innovate? I shall, of course, withdraw the amendment at this stage, leaving that question hanging in the air.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Peston: moved Amendment No. 11:
	Page 1, line 11, at end insert—
	"( ) In this Bill "innovation" and "innovative projects" refer inter alia to—
	(a) teaching arrangements, and
	(b) organisation of the school day, week and year."

Lord Peston: I can be much more brief with this amendment, which relates to innovation in another area. By "teaching arrangements", I mean the processes of setting, streaming, and so on. For example, a school that is already setting or streaming may decide that that is not a good way to proceed and may, therefore, abandon the practice. Are those arrangements examples of innovation, or would changes in them be innovative? In that case, would the Bill have any leverage in that respect? Alternatively, would such matters be decided by schools themselves, with the position not changing if the Bill were passed?
	Under the heading of "teaching arrangements", perhaps I may raise a point previously mentioned by another noble Lord. I refer to the whole question of the research base for all the activities that schools pursue. Not surprisingly, many activities in which schools engage do not have a research base. If you are "innovative", it means that you are trying something for the first time. Therefore, by definition, you think, "This is a good idea; let's try and do it".
	As someone who is totally committed to education and very keen on people trying new things, what worries me is not merely the diffusion of what they discover, and whether or not it works; I also hope that a system exists whereby a school that has found a good way forward—let us take, for example, the great row regarding the best way to achieve literacy—should be able to contribute as part of a research base to enable other people to learn from it. I say that bearing in mind, in particular, a standard social science point that something that works in one school may work for special reasons, and, therefore, cannot be generalised. That issue requires further thought.
	The
	"organisation of the school day, week and year",
	as set out in the amendment, is another one of my favourite topics. I am not quite clear on the law in this respect. My noble friend is in the ministerial position where she can explain the law to us. I have never understood the position where a school decides that it would rather teach certain hours rather than others. I have a feeling that schools are not free to operate in that respect. The same goes for the school week and the school year. However, let us suppose that a school decided, in its judgment, to start school at 8 o'clock in the morning and finish at lunch-time. I have forgotten which country in Europe follows that practice—

Baroness David: Germany.

Lord Peston: Anyway, one not exactly uneducated country operates in that way. Such a school may say, "We have seen them do it. We would like to try it to see if it works". Can my noble friend say whether that would fall within the rubric of this part of the Bill? Is it currently illegal, and needs to be made legal, or what?
	Those are the kinds of questions that I have in mind. I do not want to delay your Lordships by going through example after example, but I hope that I have made my argument clear. I want to know whether innovation covers such matters, whether the Bill has leverage on them, or whether this is an area where the Bill turns out to have no play on such matters at all. I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch: This is another opportunity to probe innovation further. The organisation of the school day and school year was an area that I thought may require legislation. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has mentioned the national curriculum. It strikes me that if there is an argument for compulsion, it is an argument for compulsion and not an argument for exemption. Another area is punishment, where we are, in a sense, ruled by European Union law.
	My understanding as regards Amendment No. 11 is that paragraph (a) would be within the law, but that paragraph (b) would be outwith the law. I believe that there is an argument for saying that the Government should consider the matter. The irony that springs to mind is that a school that took a radical view about following the European system of an early start to the day and having sport and recreational subjects outside the curriculum in extra-curricular time would probably be turned down, because it would have an impact on other schools around, it would make life difficult for working parents and so on. One may expect applications to come forward for lengthening or shortening the school day, or having a four-day week rather than a five-day week, or teaching for more weeks in the year—a whole host of options—that genuinely schools, their staff, their governors and the parents may consider would make life easier.
	Amendments have also been tabled in relation to five and six-term school years. That is an area that may require a change in legislation. It would be interesting to know whether the Government would allow some flexibility in the use of the school year, setting down criteria for how it could be accommodated without the need for the draconian early part of the Bill, which means that schools would have to make an application for almost any minor change in the organisation of the time spent in school by children.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: This is an apposite amendment. Only this morning my husband asked me whether there was any legislation relating to the school week. The school of which he is a governor is trying to rearrange its school week. It is considering finishing at lunchtime on a Friday so that teachers can use Friday afternoon as preparation time for the following week. As my husband is a county councillor, he has been asked to find out from the council whether there is any legislation covering this point. Depending on the Minister's reply, I may be able to tell him.

Baroness Perry of Southwark: The noble Lord, Lord Peston, has raised a profound issue. That is a good example of an area where schools may produce some innovative ideas that may need some relaxation of the law. However, trying to deal with individual schools and their individual ideas is not the way to proceed. If the regulations that currently determine how much of the day, the week and the year children must spend in school are inhibiting good and desirable innovation, why not create for all schools a new relaxed law that allows them, within carefully defined limits, to explore the innovation that the noble Lord has described? We could then see what good ideas they come up with, the process could be properly monitored and researched, as the noble Lord has suggested, and in terms of the outcomes we could see whether the ideas improve pupil performance. We shall then know whether or not we have done the right thing.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: This has been an interesting debate. Perhaps we can look at the powers in more detail. I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Peston and Lady David for raising the issue and I am delighted to be able to help the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. The law says that there must be two sessions with a break in between. Noble Lords are correct that if we want to make radical changes to the school day, perhaps to what has been described as the continental day, but which is in fact a combination of the German and the French model, we would need to use precisely this power.
	Although I accept the thrust and the spirit of what the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, said, we come back to the central point that whatever we do must raise standards for our children. That provision would need to be within the models that one may want to explore. Changes could not be made for convenience or for other reasons, but they must be made in the genuine belief that our children will benefit educationally. That must include children with special educational needs, children who are gifted and talented and so on.
	We would look precisely in those areas for schools to come forward with ideas. We would want to allow them to develop the model that they believe would work best for their school. They may want to explore a different model; for example, a model that developed along the French lines—four days of school plus Saturday mornings—or a German model that starts earlier and finishes earlier.
	We are trying not to prescribe for schools precisely what we believe the limits should be, but we want them to come forward with ideas. Part of the purpose behind such a move is to enable good ideas that work to come forward in primary legislation and become part of our school system. Noble Lords will agree that we do not want to experiment with our children. We want to ensure that the way in which we approach the situation raises standards. We want to allow schools to come forward with carefully considered ideas that are to the educational advantage of the children. We also want to respond in a positive manner and to monitor the situation carefully.

Baroness Perry of Southwark: We cannot know in advance whether an experiment raised standards. Trying to approve matters before they have taken place is like making wild guesses. Is this something we like the look of or not? If we allow limited and carefully controlled innovation and we ensure that it is properly monitored, we shall know after the event—not beforehand—whether it has worked. The idea of approving something beforehand is not an appropriate way to proceed.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I do not believe that schools make wild guesses. Schools consider carefully what they are trying to achieve. Schools already consider carefully innovations that they make, and they carefully consider what they will achieve by taking on a particular measure. That is the essence of the argument. The controls that we have put in place are precisely to ensure that we are not guessing wildly, but making the best possible judgment. That is why this power is important in allowing schools to come forward with and to develop ideas, and it will allow us to assess and to evaluate them, with the schools, to ensure that the ideas raise standards. When we can see that ideas have had an effect, we want to be able to come to your Lordships' House and the other place with legislation.
	In answer to my noble friend's question: yes, we want to see the potential to raise standards in those areas explored. I hope that he will accept that response to his amendment.

Lord Peston: I thank my noble friend for that answer. I have two brief comments. First, the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, is right. We have taken the concept of innovation from industry. An industrialist would regard it as ridiculous if one were to say, "Can you guarantee that this will work?" because by definition an innovation is something that one cannot guarantee. An innovation needs a basis for trying it, although one knows full well that it may fail. If we believe in innovation, as I believe all noble Lords do—certainly the Minister does—we must accept that an innovation may fail, although we hope that it will succeed. I believe that that is the correct interpretation.
	I have one slightly dissenting remark. My old friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, used the word "punishment". Whatever else I have in mind in this amendment, I am strictly a non-punishment man. In terms of fundamental philosophy, I believe that, in order to achieve something, carrots are the way and not sticks. Whatever else happens via this Bill, I hope that nothing happens to increase the role of punishment in schools. Subject to that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness David: moved Amendment No. 12:
	Page 1, line 11, at end insert—
	"( ) In this Bill "innovation" and "innovative projects" refer inter alia to involvement of the parents in the school."

Baroness David: My Lords, we come to the third of our probing amendments to try to discover what comes under "innovation" and "innovative projects". This probe concerns whether parental involvement in schools is included in the scope of Clause 1.
	Enormous advances have been made in promoting the involvement of parents in schools, mostly without any legislative backing—with the exception of parental involvement in governing bodies. Parents are welcomed to a range of tasks in schools, and that is good; for instance, helping with reading by reading aloud a story or whatever; helping with sports and with drama. Those are all very good. My question therefore is this. If a school were to ask to be allowed to carry out an innovative project which reduced the level of parental involvement, would the Secretary of State support it? I beg to move.

Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, perhaps I can pick up a point made by my noble friend Lord Peston in an earlier amendment. Although the amendments in this series have been taken separately, there is a continuing theme; that is, what is "innovation"? What comes within the scope of the Act in the sense of when does permission have to be obtained from the department and when can an innovation be initiated by a school on its own?
	It has taken us three amendments to tease out the fact contained in one of the amendments; that is, that permission has to be obtained from the department if,
	"organisation of the school day, week and year",
	is to be altered. If it takes this House that amount of probing, how are schools to understand exactly what they can and cannot do? There will have to be some detailed guidance provided for schools to know just how they can operate under the Bill.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, prompts me to return to the original point of my speech; namely, the mystery of what comprises "innovation" and indeed what stimulated the Government to bring forward this chapter of clauses.
	In reply to an earlier amendment the Minister said that she had no "preconceived ideas" as to what might come forward from schools and other qualifying bodies as proposals for innovation. Yet quite clearly behind these clauses there is a conviction on the part of the Government that there is a wealth of ideas out there somewhere ready to be brought forward. Otherwise why were these clauses introduced into this legislation with so much importance being attached to them?
	I press the Minister again, at the end of these three noble attempts to elicit some form of innovation that requires statutory relaxation, to explain this chapter of the Bill more clearly. I shall certainly feel a great deal happier if I have some kind of justification from the Government as to why Clause 1 was introduced at all. Surely the Government have expectations and must have examples of the sort of innovative ideas that are currently prevented because of statutory restraints.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, hit upon an important phrase in this context when he talked about the "wealth of ideas". All noble Lords recognise that within our schools system there has indeed been a wealth of ideas which enabled schools to develop and become individual. I believe that all schools have an individual nature in the way that they educate their children which is to be welcomed and enhanced.
	But when we talk to schools and look at the history of legislation we find examples where schools could have done things differently that would have been better for their children. I accept that the examples I gave earlier were retrospective—involving education of under-fives and so forth—but they were projects which schools had thought of and would have liked to introduce earlier. So we are all in the same place in saying that schools should be the innovators—they understand what is happening and have ideas—and the department should be the facilitator. We are simply exploring that premise in more detail.
	I too am grateful to my noble friends Lady David and Lord Peston for taking us through some examples. There is no need to list them. I am not trying to prevent a discussion on this. But what I shall seek to do between now and the next stage of the Bill is to spell out in a little more detail, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, did at the beginning of this debate, some of the innovations that schools are currently able to put into practice. I shall attempt to find something which I can lay in the Library of the House to help us in our discussions and deliberations.
	My noble friend Lady David mentioned specifically the role of parents in schools. We all recognise and welcome parents' involvement in schools. Indeed, in looking at some of our most disadvantaged young people, we find it is crucial to involve parents in a supportive way to work with the schools and with those children from an early age. At the risk of diverting to another topic, it is the essence of Sure Start; it is about trying to involve parents early. I wish to see that translated throughout the school years so that parents are involved. Parents may or may not be able to go into schools and support the children in a specific way. But we want them to make a commitment to the school, to the child's education and to work in partnership with the school to ensure that their children obtain the best possible education from the school and support the school in achieving that.
	So parental involvement is extremely important. I cannot imagine therefore a situation where a reduction of parental involvement could possibly raise standards. That is incomprehensible. I know that my noble friend was probing that point deliberately. But I cannot think of a situation where less parental involvement in schools would be an advantage to the school and an advantage in the raising of standards. I cannot envisage a situation where that might happen.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I do not believe anybody was arguing—certainly not the noble Baroness, Lady David—that there might be a reduction of the involvement of parents. The idea was the positive involvement of parents. I agree with the Minister that it is inconceivable that there is in existence any piece of legislation from which exemption would need to be granted in order to promote, encourage and involve parents in the education of their children.
	But perhaps I can press the noble Baroness on something she said. The noble Baroness admitted that her examples were from a long time ago. That is true. As I said in my speech, schools working with FE and HE has been going on for a long time and, as far as I know, it has not been against the law to do so. But we are talking about this set of Ministers, this Secretary of State and the noble Baroness herself who is part of the educational team who appear to be saying that they have been pressed by teachers on their visits about the frustration of inhibitions on them to innovate because of legislation. We have asked time and again for examples of that and the noble Baroness has not been able to give them.
	So what have all those teachers been saying to the noble Baroness and her colleagues in the department that hinted that there are statutes in place which prevent them from innovating in the classroom?

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: Perhaps I may supplement what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said. We return to the essential point: trying to find out what is innovative. We have explored various ideas, but the only one that the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, has come up with is the organisation of the school week. Yet, as I understand it, there is flexibility. She said that as long as there is a break, the school day can be varied. There must be two sessions with a break in the middle, but otherwise schools do not need statutory exemption. I suppose that they would if they ran one session a day, but provided that there is a break in the middle, they can run a short day.
	We have explored many ideas. If I may say so, your Lordships' House is a creative place, and we have been trying hard to think of ideas. But we have been unable to come up with anything that is not already covered in legislation.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I gave a second example in the Bill: the issue of childcare. Schools have been saying that one way in which they want to engage with families—especially in the areas of highest disadvantage—is to be able to provide within the school childcare facilities run not by teachers but by organisations from either the private or voluntary sectors. That would enable children and families to come into the school and participate in it. That is an example. We shall later discuss the part of the Bill that provides for that.
	I recognise that I have created some difficulties for the Committee. We are considering areas in which we are trying to enable schools to think about ideas and develop them. Members of the Committee have rightly said that a great deal of innovation can take place. We have focused on the example of the school day. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, is right, although there is guidance governing how changes can be made to ensure that parents are kept informed, and so on. That is one example. Before we return to the issue, I shall try to find more examples to satisfy the Committee.
	I thought that I had answered the specific question asked by my noble friend Lady David: might we support reducing the level of parental involvement? I was doing nothing other than trying to answer what I thought was her question. I take on board the points made by the Committee and shall of course reflect on them.

Baroness David: I thank Members of the Committee for their contributions to this short debate. I have received an answer to my question and I find it reassuring. I am delighted that my noble friend thinks that the more families are involved in school the better for the school and the families. We have got a little from these three amendments—we have got a little further—although the position is not altogether satisfactory. I thank my noble friend for her reply and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Northbourne: moved Amendment No. 13:
	Page 1, line 21, at end insert "but excluding section 1 of the Education Reform Act 1988 (c. 40) (duties with respect to the curriculum) and section 2 of the Education (Schools) Act 1992 (c. 38) (functions of the Chief Inspector for England)"

Lord Northbourne: The Bill is scary, especially in Clause 2. The noble Baroness has told us with great charm exactly what the Secretary of State plans to do. My concern is with what the Bill allows a future Secretary of State to do. It is a question not of the Government's intention but of the actual words in the Bill. I must add that it is not the first time that I have said that in the context of an education Bill.
	I tabled the amendment because I am in love with Section 1 of the Education Reform Act 1988. As the Committee will remember, it states:
	"The curriculum for a maintained school satisfies the requirements of this section if it is a balanced and broadly based curriculum which . . . promotes the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of the pupils at the school and of society; and . . . prepares such pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life".

Lord Baker of Dorking: Hear, hear.

Lord Northbourne: I am glad to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Baker.
	I hope to receive from the Minister a clear assurance that the Bill does not open the door to the Secretary of State, or some future Secretary of State, to change that provision of Section 1 of the Education Reform Act 1988, or of Section 2(d) of the Education (Schools) Act 1992, which lays on Ofsted inspectors a comparable duty to report on the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils in schools.
	I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the guidance that she sent and the assurance that it includes. I assume that the assurance refers to Clauses 74 and 75, which appear to re-establish and reconfirm the terms of Section 1 of the 1988 Act. Can she confirm that that is the case? Can she further confirm that the provisions of Clause 2 do not enable a future Secretary of State to vary or exclude clauses from the Bill—specifically, Clauses 74 and 75? Finally, does Clause 2 empower the Secretary of State to suspend or vary Section 2(d) of the 1992 Act, which provides for Ofsted? I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch: One problem with the Bill to which the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, referred is that most of us can cast our minds back through the plethora of education legislation and think of something that should be inviolate under the Bill—something that should not be exempted even if the school believes that by doing so it could raise standards for its children.
	I know that my noble friend Lord Baker, who is looking pleased, was not only Secretary of State for Education at the time but wrote the words cited by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. They are fundamental and profound words that set the context for our young people. I have always believed that education without a spiritual dimension is arid and clinical. It is essential that that should be included, along with all the other factors listed in Section 1. The temptation is now to list other statutes and say that they should be exempt from exemption, if I may put it that way.
	I hope that after our debates on all the amendments to this part of the Bill, the noble Baroness will try to persuade her colleagues that their aim of promoting and encouraging innovation in schools can be achieved in a more cost-efficient and operationally effective way. We should then not be worried about some future time when some other Secretary of State may allow schools to be exempt from Section 1 of the Education Reform Act 1988.
	I have sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. If the Bill proceeds unamended, we may well return to the matter and propose to insert in the Bill statutes that we believe should be inviolate and should not be affected in any way by any application to the Secretary of State for exemption. The way that the Bill is couched will tempt many of us to table such amendments.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that it is important to ensure that all children receive a broad and balanced curriculum and that sufficient safeguards are in place to ensure that educational standards are monitored and maintained in our schools. I hope that the noble Lord will be reassured by the guidance covering applications for the power to innovate that I have placed in the Library. That guidance clearly states that we would not countenance proposals that led to a diminution in the accountability arrangements for schools. However, we would consider proposals to strengthen or simplify the accountability framework.
	I hope that the Committee is also reassured by the criteria set out in the guidance, which clearly state that when considering proposals the Secretary of State will have regard to the need to promote the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of children and society through a broad and balanced curriculum. I am sure that the Committee will accept that as a statement of our determination to ensure that all children continue to receive the breadth of education to which they are entitled.
	The answer to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, about whether Sections 74 and 75 re-enact the Education Reform Act 1988 is, "Yes". That is currently in the Education Act 1996. I recognise that it is an important point, and, on Report, I shall propose an amendment that will address it fully.

Lord Northbourne: I am grateful for that encouraging answer. I would not have pressed the amendment, but I will say that, unfortunately, guidance is not the same as law. That is the problem. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I want to make a short statement about Amendment No. 14. I am not satisfied with the answer that the Minister gave about the definition of the school year. The matter arises again in Amendment No. 139, which is linked to Amendment No. 157. With the Committee's leave, I shall return to the issue when we discuss Amendment No. 139. That would be more appropriate.

[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
	Clause 1 agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
	Clause 2 [Power to suspend statutory requirements etc]:

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 16:
	Page 2, line 25, at end insert "except section 317 of the Education Act 1996 (duties of governing body or local education authority in relation to pupils with special educational needs)"

Baroness Blatch: I hope that the Minister will find the amendment irresistible. Several of us, representing all parts of the Committee, have argued that it is fundamental that, in any exemption from legislation, we should concern ourselves with protecting the interests of children with special educational needs. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, who is not now in his place, was concerned about Section 1 of the Education Reform Act 1988. I wish to make an exception of Section 317 of the Education Act 1996, which protects the interests of children with special educational needs.
	Subsection (1) of Section 317 says that,
	"The governing body, in the case of a"—
	community, foundation or voluntary school—
	"and the local education authority, in the case of a maintained nursery school, shall"—
	not "may", which is often used in legislation—
	"shall
	(a) use their best endeavours, in exercising their functions in relation to the school, to secure that, if any registered pupil has special educational needs, the special educational provision which his learning difficulty calls for is made,
	(b) secure that, where the responsible person has been informed by the local education authority that a registered pupil has special educational needs, those needs are made known to all who are likely to teach him, and
	(c) secure that the teachers in the school are aware of the importance of identifying, and providing for, those registered pupils who have special educational needs".
	I hope that the Minister will agree with me that it is inconceivable that any proposal that came forward from a school—single applicant or corporate applicant—would have the effect of invalidating Section 317 of the 1996 Act in any way, just as would have been the case with Section 1 of the 1988 Act.
	There is a great deal of insecurity about the vulnerability of legislation protecting children with special educational needs. In particular, the ink is hardly dry on the Act that deals with children with special educational needs. We must put something in the Bill that puts it beyond peradventure that the interests of those children are secure. I beg to move.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I support Amendment No. 16, and I shall speak to Amendment No. 17, which is in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said, many of us were engaged last year in putting through the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001. There is concern—not only on our part but among those who supported our work on that Act, particularly the Special Education Consortium—that we should now introduce such sweeping legislation. I have already referred to the power given to the Secretary of State to confer on an applicant,
	"exemption from any requirement imposed by education legislation".
	That is what it says in the Bill.
	It is vitally important that it is made clear—preferably in the Bill—that that exemption does not include special educational needs provision. We went to a lot of trouble last year to make sure that the needs of children with special educational needs were covered in legislation, so that schools could not wriggle out of their obligations and—perhaps, above all—so that colleges and universities could not wriggle out of their obligations. There is great danger that this Bill will do away with all that.
	The education Acts govern the arrangements for children with special educational needs, including children with disabilities to the extent that they need special educational provision. The Acts and the related secondary legislation also cover reporting by governing bodies of maintained schools in respect of arrangements for children with disabilities. The Special Education Consortium recognises that the legislation covering other aspects of the duty towards children with disabilities is not included in the education Acts and, therefore, could not be varied by application under Clause 2. However, an application could be made to vary future education Acts that might include more detailed arrangements for disabled pupils as well as pupils with SEN.
	We are grateful for the time given by the Minister and officials to hear the concerns of those fighting for the rights of those with special educational needs. Careful consideration has been given to those concerns. The Secretary of State has given an assurance that she does not intend to vary any duties to disabled children or children with special educational needs. However, that is not what the Bill says. Equally, a commitment from the current Secretary of State does not bind any subsequent—perhaps less benign—Secretary of State.
	Reassurances have been given that the approval of the Secretary of State is needed for any variation. That is clear in the design of the Bill. However, the Secretary of State may not be well placed to see what might be the impact of a variation on local provision for disabled children. It is, therefore, extremely important that we get a commitment in the Bill that there will be no exemption from or disallowing of aspects of educational legislation that relate to special educational needs.

Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I support all three amendments. The noble Baronesses who have spoken have been very eloquent and rather brief. I am afraid that I shall not be quite so brief.
	All the amendments are aimed at the protection of the vulnerable, to use the Minister's words. My amendment—No. 22—originated with the Independent Panel on Special Education Advice, of which I am a patron. IPSEA is a member of the Special Education Consortium, which is the source of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford. My amendment goes wider than Amendment No. 16, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, but Amendment No. 17—in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford—is preferable to my amendment because it covers children with disabilities under the DDA. So, I would plump for Amendment No. 17, but, for the moment, I shall speak to Amendment No. 22.
	I am grateful to the Minister for our long and helpful meeting. We all understand the Government's intention to open up the possibility of innovation and progressive development of educational practice by adventurous LEAs. Their aim is to improve schooling for all children by relieving LEAs of certain legal duties. I shall not go into the question of whether, in the case of most children, legislation is necessary; we have had enough of that today. I support the contention made by both noble Baronesses that children with special educational needs already have the freedom; it is the protection of the statement that they need.
	I shall try not to be too repetitive, but with regard to the arrangements for the assessment and statementing of children with special educational needs, set out under the Education Act 1996, I need to make two specific points. I shall be boringly specific after the glorious eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, but I am afraid that it is necessary.
	Seeing the noble Lord, Lord Peston, reminds me that during the passage of the 1988 Act we were worried about the freedom which teachers were given under the curriculum to disapply it to children with special educational needs. At that point, the worry was reversed. Teachers do have the freedom.
	On the positive side, statements already allow educational provision to be tailored for individual children. A feature of that individual tailoring can be relieving LEAs and schools of specific duties which are not appropriate in terms of meeting the special needs of individual children; thus allowing innovation with regard to the education of individual children with statements. For example, under the 2001 SEN regulations, an LEA can apply whatever modifications or even exclusions that it considers appropriate to the application of the national curriculum in respect of an individual child. Furthermore, an LEA can decide upon any provision for his education otherwise than at school. It currently allows a wide variety of provision other than attendance at school; for instance, split placements between schools and specialist units; early attendance at colleges; home-based education with support from the home tuition service, and so forth.
	In short, the device of a statement already allows an LEA maximum flexibility to be innovative with educational arrangements to the benefit of individual children with special educational needs. It does not need the benefits which the Government believe that Clause 2 will bring to all our children. Secondly, on a more negative note, there is potential for great hazard in Clause 2 for children whose needs require them to have assessments and statements of special educational needs made and maintained under the 1996 Act.
	The Minister spoke about teachers knowing the law and she said how important it was to have an understanding of SEN law. The main purpose of statements is to protect the provision for children with special educational needs. The important point is that that protection depends on a linking together of several separate duties created by separate sections of the 1996 Act: the duty to identify from those children for whom they are responsible those who have special educational needs under Section 323; the duty to assess a child who has, or probably has, special educational needs which require the authority to determine the special educational provision called for under Section 323(2); the duty to make and maintain a statement of special educational needs when assessment shows that to be necessary under Section 324(1); the duty to specify in a statement the special educational provision to be made for the purpose of meeting an individual child's needs under Section 324(3)(a) and (b); and the duty to arrange the special education provision specified in a statement under Section 324(5)(a)(i).
	The point is that as with any chain it would take only one of those links to be removed (through an LEA being relieved of one of those legal duties by a future Secretary of State) for children's legal entitlements to special educational provision to be totally undermined. Those entitlements would fall and with them Parliament's settled intention for more than 20 years for provision to protect those children's needs. The Minister described it as the protection of the vulnerable.
	I am grateful to the Minister for her most useful guidance as regards the power to innovate. Page 1 contained a cheering piece stating that it was the view of the Government that weakening the accountability framework would not lead to higher standards overall. She stated that proposals may raise standards by strengthening the accountability framework. That is immediately followed by:
	"Proposals to simplify or make the accountability framework less bureaucratic will also be considered".
	Alarm bells ring as anyone involved in special educational needs knows that it is a common complaint to LEAs that the assessment and statementing procedures are too bureaucratic and too complex, yet a child's legal entitlements to appropriate provision are absolutely dependent on the procedures—the links in the chain—being adhered to.
	With regard to children with special educational needs, a removal or simplification of any of the existing procedures set out in the 1996 Act risks undermining children's legal entitlement to a statement which genuinely protects their provision—the ultimate protection of the vulnerable.
	I look forward to the Minister's reply and I hope that we shall be able to have a good many conversations outwith the Chamber. For the moment, I firmly support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp.

Lord Rix: I echo the sentiments expressed by the triumvirate of noble Baronesses who have spoken. I recognise and welcome the Government's attempts to promote innovation in classrooms. I am not against innovation; to stifle it is to lose possibility. I was fortunate enough to have an opportunity to discuss the issue with the Minister and I thank her for the assurances that she has given. However, my concern is about the effects of the clause in the longer term, rather like my noble friend Lord Northbourne, who is not in his place, when he moved Amendment No. 13. Given the new power, can the Minister assure the Committee that no future Secretary of State will intentionally or unintentionally allow schools to opt out of special educational needs legislation in the name of innovation? As the Bill is presently written, I fear that the Minister may find it impossible to gaze into her crystal ball and offer such a guarantee.
	We have come a long way since the Education (Handicapped Children) Act 1970 which gave all children a place in our educational system and I do not want to see us sliding back. To do so would be to lose all the gains towards inclusion, equal access and equal provisions for pupils with special educational needs and disabled children. We could combine innovation and caution, which is what Members of the Committee have proposed. Therefore, I support all three noble Baronesses in their respective amendments.

Lord Swinfen: I, too, support this group of amendments. I hope that at a later stage the Minister will come back with her own amendment which has the same effect. Having quickly looked at the Bill, I understand that the only innovations on special educational needs which could be brought forward would probably weaken the current special educational needs framework. Will the Minister reassure me on that point and give examples of innovations that would not weaken but would strengthen the framework? At present, as regards special educational needs I see the clause being used only to weaken them.

Lord Addington: I support the amendment tabled by my noble friend. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, mentioned the Education Act 1970. If good intentions were enough, the matter would probably have ended there. Most of the measures put forward for special education have been in response to need. People make mistakes, they overlook issues and they do not always understand them. We have reached the point at which individual needs must be examined on a case-by-case basis.
	If we make exemptions and remove pieces of legislation, we are in danger of opening up cracks down which people will fall. The great advantage of the amendment and current legislation is that people have something to fall back on. There is a constant fear that if provisions are removed many of the defences that we have put in place will disappear.
	I hope that the Minister will tell the Committee that provisions will be written down on paper so that a parent can read it and say, "No, this cannot happen. We should receive X amount of help". The history of special educational needs shows that unless there is something on paper to indicate to people what they should do and to whom they should speak, action is not taken. At present, we have a good structure—at least on paper. Please let us know that none of that will be removed.

Lord Lucas: This is a difficult area to deal with. Both schools and, in particular, local education authorities are under a great deal of pressure with regard to special educational needs. I have much sympathy for the local educational authorities, which have so little leeway in their budgets to deal with the extra demands that arise from having perhaps only two or three extra pupils with autism throughout the entire authority. Those pupils can take half a million pounds from the budget.
	Special educational needs is an area where innovation and experimentation is required. We need fresh thinking and new ideas and we need to see how they work. So I welcome the application of the early clauses of the Bill to this area, but I share completely the reservations expressed by the Special Educational Consortium and others about putting at risk the very hard won rights of children with special educational needs. This is an area where we cannot leave things as undefined as they are in the Bill.
	For most schools, such a power will be a positive move and will present wonderful opportunities because, by and large, all the motivations in those schools are also positive. However, in the area of special educational needs, where heavy financial pressures must be borne—and even within schools there may be many prejudices and difficulties—I do believe that we have to keep the safeguards in place. I favour the approach adopted by my noble friend Lady Blatch in her amendment. Let us not be wet blankets and say that we shall have no innovation at all in this area, but let us also find a way of incorporating into the Bill a means of ensuring that, whatever experimentation takes place, the key elements of protection are kept firmly in place. We should not allow them to be chipped away.
	Beyond that, let us encourage as much innovation as possible in the provision of special needs education because surely we need to do better than we are at the moment. It would be a great pity to lose the right to innovate simply because of the justified fears of the special educational needs lobby when it considers the new battery of powers that will be conferred on special educational needs education. The Government must move on this point and find a way of making the protections sacrosanct, while leaving as much room as possible for SEN education to do better than is the case at present.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I cannot match the eloquence with which so many noble Lords have put their case on this extremely important point. Before I begin, I wish to make one point which I failed to raise in response to Amendment No. 13, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, although I see that he is not in his place. A point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, about the length of the power. Noble Lords should be aware that the power will last for four years, at the end of which it would cease to operate. During that time, a school may apply for up to three years for an innovation to be taken forward, with a possible extension of a further three years. For that reason, it would not be within the remit of future Secretaries of State to take forward this particular power. However, noble Lords should bear in mind that neither election dates nor their outcomes are within my gift.
	I recognise the importance of this area and I am grateful to the many noble Lords and representatives of the Special Educational Consortium who have come to see me to discuss these issues. As I said to all those who did come to see me, I was keen that we should have this debate.
	I want to make it clear that in determining whether or not a proposal would raise standards, the Secretary of State will have regard to the need to raise standards for all children, including those with special educational needs. However, I have said previously that there is no reason why innovative proposals from schools or LEAs are any less likely to benefit children with special educational needs. Indeed, I very much hope that pupils with special educational needs will benefit from these proposals. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, pointed out, we should encourage any project which might lead to higher educational standards and support for this group of pupils.
	My only concern with the amendments is that, as currently drafted, they may actually stand in the way of allowing schools and LEAs to come forward with proposals which could benefit pupils with special educational needs. I shall give the Committee an example. If the governing body of a particular school—let us call it a strong school in the context of special educational needs—were to take on the key teaching and learning responsibilities of a weaker school's governing body, it would be important, in strengthening arrangements for those with special educational needs, that the strong school's governing body could lead on this as well. That would require some adjustment to the effects of special educational legislation, to secure proper provision.
	I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who spoke so eloquently about the matter, that I hope that we are not yet finished with our support for special educational needs. Indeed, we have put in place a raft of provisions to support our children, although I hope that we have not come to an end in those efforts. I am sure that there will be much more that we can do to support these and all our children in education.
	Within that context, perhaps I may give a commitment that, before we return to the matter on Report, I shall look at how best we can ensure that the protections for vulnerable children and those with special educational needs are made clear, not only in this legislation but also in our intentions as to how this power will be used. With that commitment, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Lord Renton: I have listened to the noble Baroness with great interest, but I should have thought that this was a matter on which it would be desirable to have the removal of doubt. The incorporation of either Amendment No. 16 or Amendment No. 17 would surely help in that. It would not interfere with the meaning of the legislation. Something along these lines would be desirable.

Baroness Blatch: I have selected one piece of legislation, the noble Baroness has selected another, while the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, has chosen yet another way of approaching the same issue. I should admit at the outset that I am not territorial about my amendment. What we are all arguing for is to ensure that proper protection is brought to bear against the strong feelings of vulnerability felt by those concerned about the provision for children with special educational needs. Because special educational needs has been included in the list where powers may be brought to bear, they could qualify for exemption.
	One of the ways around the difficulty would be this. Although I shall withdraw the amendment at the end of my remarks, between now and the Report stage, I would ask the Minister to consider carefully whether subsection (5) of my proposed new Clause 1 might aid us here. For the purposes of clarity I shall quote it:
	"No order may be made under subsection (4) nor may any provision be made in such an order, unless the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales as the case may be is satisfied that such order or provision may be made without detriment to the education at the school of those pupils having special educational needs".
	I am sure that the provision would need a little rewriting, but it would ensure that nothing in Clause 2 should be allowed to interfere with or have a detrimental effect on the education of children with special educational needs.
	I believe that this would also fall into the category covered by the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. Adding a provision at the very beginning of the Bill would act as a form of scene-setter for the rest of the legislation. The protection of children with special educational needs should be made extremely clear and I am sure that such a provision is warranted. I put this proposal forward as a suggestion.
	I agree with the noble Baroness that there is much scope for innovation in the field of special educational needs. It is an area which already enjoys a great deal of effort on the part of many people, and long may that continue. One would not want to exclude them from being able to apply to raise standards for children with special educational needs.
	When the noble Baroness referred to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, she commented on the time-scale of the power. I find it difficult to understand why any form of time constraint has to be incorporated at all. As I said when speaking in support of Amendment No. 1, if a school has introduced an innovation and it is a good idea, why impose a three-year, six-year or any other constraint on it? Surely it should be allowed to continue. If the innovation does not work, then it will be found out. Either parents will become dissatisfied or exam results and school performance will show that it is not working, and through its inspections, Ofsted will discover that something is amiss. Poor innovations will simply fall by the wayside. It would even be possible to introduce a power in the Bill that if, after a certain period, an innovation is not working, then it should fall. However, if it is successful, the thought of 23,000 potential regulations having to pass through the House in order to change the law on the basis of proposals here, there and everywhere strikes me as being an extremely laborious way of allowing for innovation.
	In the meantime, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I rise to say only that I am delighted that the Minister is listening to these arguments. I look forward to seeing her further proposals.

[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]

Lord Peston: moved Amendment No. 18:
	Page 2, line 33, at end insert—
	"( ) No order made in this Chapter shall enable the Secretary of State (in relation to England) or the National Assembly of Wales (in relation to Wales) to introduce or permit the introduction of selection by ability in any schools in receipt of public funds."

Lord Peston: We have had some extremely interesting debates on the amendments so far where, although there is still some controversy, there seems to have been a considerable meeting of minds. I now take the Committee into an area where I believe that philosophically we will diverge very strongly indeed. The amendment relates to selection and comprehensive education.
	I declare an interest. I have devoted more than 30 years of my life to campaigning for comprehensive education. My children went to comprehensive schools even though my friends at Highgate at the time—not all of them, but quite a lot—talked about "sacrificing your children" and so on. Anyone who knows my children will know that the word "sacrifice" does not apply to them at all.
	I was heartened by my noble friend the Minister when, at Second Reading, she averred her commitment to comprehensive education. A similar statement has been made by my right honourable friend the present Secretary of State. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said, we are discussing a Bill which one day will be an Act of Parliament. Therefore, what specific Ministers or specific Secretaries of State say at this time is of no relevance whatever. We are discussing the broad generic concept of "a" Secretary of State, whoever he or she may be.
	Even bearing that in mind—and here I must be very acerbic indeed—I should have thought that, after five years of a Labour Government with two massive majorities, by now all grammar schools would have gone. Although there are not many grammar schools left, if I had had my way they certainly would all have gone. I regarded them as a blot on the educational landscape 30 years ago; I still regard their contribution to the education system viewed as a whole as destructive, not constructive. But I accept defeat on that. If this Labour Government with this majority are not going to get rid of grammar schools, I cannot imagine that I shall live to see a Labour Government who will.
	My concern, therefore, is what the Bill will enable, in the abstract sense, a future Secretary of State to do. On reading the Bill, I cannot see that the Bill does other than empower a future Secretary of State—doctrinal though I may regard such a person—to say, "We believe that an innovation that will raise standards and improve our education system would be one that reintroduced selection by ability". I can see nothing in the Bill to stop that if the Secretary of State were to argue along those lines. I do not want to put the idea into the heads of those who have not thought as cleverly as I have that that is how they may argue, but in the Bill I cannot see anything that could remotely stop such a Secretary State.
	My noble friend replying that she does not intend to do it simply is not an answer to the question. In her response I wish to hear my noble friend say one of two things: either that I do not understand the Bill—which I entirely accept; I have said that I am having difficulties with it—or that it could not possibly happen. But if I understand the Bill correctly, a future Secretary of State could do this on the grounds that it was innovative and beneficial. We would then have to amend the Bill—exactly on these or, with better draftsmen's ideas, other lines—so that no Secretary of State could reintroduce reselection on the grounds that it was an innovation that he or she thought was advantageous.
	I reassure my noble friend that I am still sticking to my policy; this is a probing amendment. I have no intention of seeking a vote on comprehensives until Report stage, but at least one Member of the Committee will one day go on record as supporting in the Lobbies comprehensive education. I beg to move.

Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I oppose the Bill on the grounds that it gives too much power to the Secretary of State. If the interpretation of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is correct, I would welcome the chance for the Secretary of State to improve many of the disadvantages that exist currently in English education.
	Most of Europe will be amazed that the battles of 40 years ago are still going on in the English legislature. "Selection by ability" is a rather general term. It is like saying, "All Catholics are wrong", or, "All Marxists are devils". What it really means is that people should be educated according to their potential. The noble Lord and I share the ideal that every pupil in this country is entitled to a general education. But there comes a time when some want to be economists like the noble Lord, some want to be historians like me, some want to be plumbers, some want to be electricians and so on. They are all entitled to a training that allows them to fulfil their potential.
	This occurs in France, in Holland and the Netherlands, in Germany and in Austria. In Germany, for example, people move between the two systems without the bitterness of the kind of class war that the noble Lord describes. If the Secretary of State decided that people over 16 should move in a direction where their particular potential could be realised, that would not be selection by ability. If he or she further decided that they should, for reasons of economy and specialisation, go to specialist institutions—as they do in France and Germany—he or she should be entitled to do so. The noble Lord is being dinosaur-like in the field of education in seeking to deny the Secretary of State this power.
	It is interesting that when East Germany joined the West it abandoned comprehensive education, which it had had for a long time, except in Brandenberg and part of Berlin. It was egalitarian—everyone had the choice—but only 9 per cent of Germany followed comprehensive education.
	Dare I say that it is somewhat insular to talk in those terms—terms that I have not heard since the 1960s? I speak as chairman of the National Grammar Schools Association. Many of our schools have beacon status awarded by the Government. I deplore the amendment. I admire the noble Lord in many respects; and I am sorry that he is rather like a man who still believes that the earth is flat.

Baroness Walmsley: I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. The commitment of these Benches to the principle of comprehensive education is well known. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, this has nothing to do with class warfare but a great deal to do with standards. The contribution of comprehensive education to the increase in educational standards in this country over decades is very well known to those who know about education. With those few words, I support the amendment.

Lord Lucas: In the interests of balance, as the Government Front Bench will undoubtedly support selection, I should say something in support of the comprehensive principle. I entirely share the affection of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for comprehensive schools. That is where my children are, and I am delighted by it. The way that comprehensive schools work—when they work well—is entirely admirable and is the best solution, where that is possible, to organising schools and education.
	But I do not support the noble Lord in the wording of his amendment. Clearly you have to have some schools where you select by ability. If you are going to have a school for young footballers as a football academy, or for people specialising in dance or music and so on, then you have to select by that ability. If we are to offer those kinds of opportunities, clearly selection has a place.
	Selection also has a place at some age. At the moment, we allow selection at 16. One can find admirable examples of where that works extremely well. The noble Lord may know the Cambridge sixth-form colleges. There is no formal division between the two, but one has developed as the academic college and the other has developed as the college with breadth. Selection in the process of getting kids into Hills Road does not hurt at all because it allows it to offer a much more focused curriculum on the straightforward academics, whereas Long Road has a much broader and, in many ways, more interesting offering without having the academic hurdles to get over. Such selection has allowed that kind of differentiation to take place.
	My objection to a grammar school system, such as is practised in Kent or Buckinghamshire, is that children are not developed at age 11. They have not begun to show their faces. My son is 14, and even at that age I find it hard to know whether he will turn out to be an academic or a rock musician. If he were forced to make the choice at 11, it would be daffy, and I would not wish it upon him to have to make the choice at 14; 16 is probably the right age at which to allow selection by ability. So I see several roles for selection by ability, but I do not share the passion of some in my party for the extension of it. I line myself up behind my idol in these matters, the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, who did so much good work in introducing the comprehensive system.

Lord Dormand of Easington: I strongly support the views expressed by my noble friend Lord Peston. I have made my views known during both terms of office of this Government, in this Chamber and in writing. All that we are told is that they have to take into consideration the views of parents. That is the official answer, and it is difficult to argue against that.
	My question, then, is: how do we assess the views of parents? Do we take votes in the area of a school? Do we write more letters? Do we canvass? What is the system whereby we come to what some would say is the answer to the problem posed by my noble friend?
	An argument to which I subscribe, although my noble friend may not, is that if you feel as we feel, and as we have argued for many years, that comprehensive education is the best system of secondary education, then, frankly, we do it. If there is opposition—as there will be—then we have to use the argument and cite the experience to show that what we are saying and doing is right. I only hope that we shall have a longer and more sensible debate on this very important and central issue.

Baroness Blatch: I suddenly like this Bill! I have no philosophical hang-up about selection on the basis of ability. I say to those noble Lords who have supported the amendment, including those on the Liberal Democrat Benches: the Government have left you all behind. We are all Tories now on this issue. There is a great deal of selection in the system. If she makes reference to the matter in replying, the noble Baroness will be able to catalogue the areas in the system where, even since this Government came to power, modes of selection have been introduced.
	I remember an incredible debate—which I may later be able to find in Hansard—that took place when we attempted to elicit from the Government their definition of "ability" and "aptitude". It would qualify for the Wooden Spoon Award from the Plain English Society. It was pure gobbledegook. It took a long time, and the debate was extremely amusing, but at the end of the day we were none the wiser.
	Perhaps I may draw to the attention of our Liberal Democrat friends the intervention that took place during the speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. When she claimed to be against selection on the basis of ability, she was reminded that Liberal Democrats up and down the land were walking in the streets to defend their local grammar schools from being destroyed by the balloting system put in place by this Government. The answer was: "Well, our national policy is one thing, but our local policy is another". All I can say is: if you have a policy, you have a policy. As I say, in principle, I have no objection whatever and no philosophical hang-up.
	Teaching children—all children—according to their abilities and aptitudes is what education should be about. Reference has been made to children with special educational needs. It is just as important to meet their needs as it is to meet the needs of those who are highly able.
	I know that the Minister will tell us how much the Government are doing to meet the needs of the highly able. But they are being selected for that. Whether they are being selected under the same roof, in a comprehensive school, or whether they are being selected for an academic "hot house" type education in Hills Road or even in some of our grammar schools up and down the land makes no odds. It is important that children are taught and that the education provided is consistent with their abilities and aptitudes.
	Being against selection, as the Government claim to be—although in practice they have put quite a lot of it in place—is a mean-spirited policy of envy. We must be thankful for small mercies: the limited amount of selection that was in place when the Government took office is still in place.
	The noble Lord, Lord Peston, in confessional mode, talked about his own children going to comprehensive school. I shall be equally confessional and say that my children did too. My children have done exceptionally well. The debate is not about whether you like or do not like comprehensive education. I believe that it has its place in the system. We have a great deal of choice in the education system. There are some excellent comprehensive schools; there are some poor ones. There are some excellent private schools; there are some poor ones. There are some excellent grammar schools; and there are some grammar schools that are not performing as well as they might. The debate is not about the structure of a school; it is about meeting the needs of children.
	We had a debate in this House on higher education last night and a previous debate on the subject about a week ago. One of the key issues that emerged was how we should prepare young people for higher education. There was agreement on all sides, including on the Government Benches, that another key issue was how we could help children from poorer families to be fully prepared at school level to be qualified for entrance into higher education. I passionately support that idea. But you cannot do that if you turn your back on selection on the grounds of ability.
	The Government's determination to deny selection on the grounds of ability makes the policy of inclusion an absolute sham. As I said, bright children from poorer homes will be the losers. It is for them that we should be concerned. When the Government came to office, such children were helped—by the assisted places scheme, by places in independent schools and by places in grammar schools. Then the pernicious system of local balloting was introduced to see whether local pressure groups could get rid of grammar schools. Over every grammar school in the country hangs the sword of Damocles; namely, the fear that signatures will be gathered for a petition in the balloting system that will determine its future. That need not happen only once; it can happen year on year, affecting the children in those schools and sapping the energies of parents and staff, who have to drop what they are doing in order to fend off the possible curtailment of their future.
	I hope that the amendment introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, will not be supported and that the Liberal Democrats will not enter the Lobby with him at a later stage. I hope that the Minister—who I believe is as concerned about bright children from poor homes as we all are—will at least say that there is a place in education for selecting children on the basis of aptitude and ability.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I had not intended to intervene in this debate. However, I have been moved to do so by the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch.
	My great regret is that, so far as concerns new Labour, we are all Tories now. The point is that they have not done as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has suggested and stood up for the comprehensive principle. Yes, it was 40 years ago, as the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, said. For the past 40 years I have been fighting for the comprehensive system. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, put it very well: at 11, you cannot choose. I agree with him: 15 or 16 is the right age. That is when young people have some idea of their own abilities and know where they want to go.
	We debated this matter yesterday. I cannot accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said about—

Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: If the Germans can select at 14 with no problem of conflict between classes, why can we not do that in England?

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: That relates partly to the class system in this country. I think that 14, 15 or 16 are much better ages for selecting.
	I cannot accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said about preparation for universities. Across the board, good comprehensive schools are preparing young people for university and they are doing splendidly. Yesterday I was arguing the case for having masters degrees for plumbers. We need a broad range. Schools such as the sixth-form colleges in Cambridge are doing precisely that and are preparing our young people splendidly to go forward.

Baroness Blatch: I know how passionate the noble Baroness is about plumbers. Does she agree that, while we need first-class plumbers, electricians, doctors, dentists and nurses, we also need the academic élite? We need bright academic people. We know from what teachers say about the very bright children in our nursery schools, our primary schools and our secondary schools that unless they can be selected at some time and given an education commensurate with their particular talents, we are failing those children.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I think that the noble Baroness would also accept—because I think that this applies to both our own children—that all the evidence shows that bright children do very well at comprehensive schools and many of them go forward to become very bright academics.

Lord Turnberg: I hesitate to speak in this debate, because it is clearly not my area. I am prompted to do so because there is clearly some confusion about the difference between education and training. Education has to be available to all, irrespective of ability. Training is for people who want to take advantage of their particular aptitudes. Training comes rather later, after a person has been educated to the best of their capacity. That is why I support the amendment.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: This has been an interesting debate. I am interested in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about rock musicians. As a great fan of "Pop Idol", including, I confess, voting at the end—

Lord Lucas: Rock, not pop.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: On that I can support the noble Lord even more. We must certainly have a conversation about that.
	In some ways I wish that we were having this debate on a Wednesday afternoon, when we would have the time to delve into the fundamentals of the issue. We share the aim of teaching children of all aptitudes and abilities. The question embroiled in the debate is about the mechanics of how to do that.
	I do not believe in a grammar school system, because I do not believe in a system that chooses at 11 those who are to be described as "academic" and go to grammar school and those who, as where I grew up, go to a secondary modern. That does not mean that children should not make choices at older ages. We have always had a system in which children make choices as they get older about the kind of education that works for them. All noble Lords agree on that.
	To respond to my noble friend Lord Peston specifically on the amendment, this power, which will last for four years, is brought in by a government who legislated in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 to rule out any new selection by ability in maintained schools. We have made it clear that we do not believe that selection by academic ability has anything to do with raising standards. The Secretary of State would not accept a proposal to extend selection to publicly funded schools under this power. As we do not believe that such proposals would raise standards, we would not have the power to use the provision in that way. I can also give a commitment to my noble friend to make that explicit in the guidance on the power to innovate. With those reassurances, I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.

Lord Peston: I remind the Committee that I am a member of the academic élite and I stand second to no one in the Chamber in my capacity for intellectual snobbery. I also apologise to my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey, because he was at least as committed and more directly involved than I was in comprehensive education in Haringey. I accept that he, among others, was at the forefront of what we were all doing. That applies to many other noble Lords.
	I also plead guilty to being a dinosaur. Being a dinosaur means that I am a conservative, of course. I think that many things from the past that are old are good compared with things that are new. I have no problem with that.
	Suggesting that we are all Tories now shows an ignorance of the history of comprehensives. The Tories were at the forefront of introducing comprehensives in some of their local authorities. It was not Tory doctrine at the beginning of all this not to go for comprehensive. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, as far as I know and unless things have changed, the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, created more comprehensives than any other Secretary of State—and quite rightly. It is not true to say that we are all Tories now.
	Noble Lords know how much I hate politics. In my judgment, this is not a political matter, but a philosophical division on the nature of education and how we approach it. The question generally is not just about bright children from poorer homes, but about all children. I am as concerned about stupid children from rich homes as I am about bright children from poorer homes. Stupid children from rich homes having inappropriate education inflicted on them because of the class prejudices—if noble Lords wish to press that point—of their parents is just as bad as anything else that I can think of. The issue is what is right for all children.
	I have two other points following the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. He got on to my next amendment, which has ruined it for me a little. The next amendment is about what we should do for the future Beckhams of this world. I shall come to that in a moment. On the issue of rock versus academic, I shall give the Committee one anecdote. When I was very much younger, one of my economics colleagues at LSE said to me, "We've got this young man called Jagger and he has asked me whether he should carry on with his BSc(Econ) or carry on with his group". I said to him, "I take it you advised him that a BSc(Econ) was definitely worth a lot more for the future than playing rock music". He said, "No, I told him if he was good at rock he probably ought to do that". For once, an economist gave some good advice.
	Coming to what the amendment is all about, I am still a little lost, because my noble friend the Minister did not reassure me about what I feared could happen. She did not say whether a different Secretary of State could use the legislation in precisely the form that troubles me. I agree with her that we need a bit more time on the issue, so we shall come back to it on Report and talk some more. Given that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Peston: moved Amendment No. 19:
	Page 2, line 33, at end insert—
	"( ) No order made in this Chapter shall enable the Secretary of State (in relation to England) or the National Assembly of Wales (in relation to Wales) to introduce where it does not already occur, or extend or permit the extension of, selection by aptitude, social class, or religious affiliation in any schools in receipt of public funds."

Lord Peston: I am getting tired, even if no one else is, so I hope that we can deal with this amendment reasonably quickly. Amendment No. 18 related to my hope that it would not be possible to extend selection by ability under the Bill. This amendment relates to what forms of selection would be permissible under the Bill. It raises our old friend, the debate on whether aptitude is different from ability. I beg the Committee not to continue that debate this evening. I shall be happy to come back to it when I am feeling stronger, but I can do without that kind of linguistics at the moment. Would the Bill enable the introduction of forms of selection other than by ability? The amendment also anticipates one of the tough areas that I shall get involved with—the question of selection by religious affiliation. I want to debate that, although not in detail under this heading. Would the Bill enable that to be extended? As I promised right at the beginning of today's proceedings, I am viewing this as a straight question to the Minister and to other noble Lords. What forms of selection might be permitted under the rubric of this Bill?
	I have one further comment in anticipation of a later debate. I agree that we need to debate age and what happens in different age groups. However, I do not want to do that in this debate, and I hope that other noble Lords also accept that we should postpone debating the issue of 14, 16 and so on until we reach later, relevant amendments. I beg to move.

The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: I have listened very carefully to this fascinating debate. I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Peston, but I suspect that he anticipated that someone from these Benches might intervene at this point. I simply tell him that, in visiting hundreds of schools and talking to thousands of head teachers, teachers and parents, I have never come across a school yet that admitted social class as one of the grounds on which it admitted pupils. I also agree that this is not the moment to debate these issues. I should simply like to make a couple of points on the issue of religious affiliation.
	I am aware that Amendment No. 19 is only a probing amendment. However, if it were accepted, I believe that it would be a limitation on the freedom of schools and local communities to develop the character of schools and to respond to the needs of the local community. Over the years, time and again, through me and other spokesmen, the Church of England has put on public record its commitment to working in partnership with LEAs, parents and the local community. Consequently, any development of the Church's provision must have local support and agreement. There is a slight danger that, if Amendment No. 19 were accepted, that would be prevented. We believe that a requirement such as that proposed in the amendment in respect of religious affiliation would undermine local decision-making and schools' ability to develop as they see fit in the development of their own life and their own educational standards.
	Some would say that the amendment could represent an intolerant attitude, although I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, intended it in that way. Others have told me that they believe it is rather undemocratic. It would certainly enshrine the discrepancy in the ability to exercise parental preference in Church of England high school education in this country. However, this is not the moment to have a major debate on that subject. That will come later, and I look forward to it with more passionate interest than I can say. I simply want to say that we are concerned about the limitation that the amendment, if passed in this form, could put on the freedom of schools and communities to develop.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, would readily admit that, in both Amendment No. 18 and Amendment No. 19, we are fighting over old battlegrounds. Perhaps we should forget those old battlegrounds and certainly not regard them as inhibiting any future development. My own feeling, for what it is worth, is that selection by ability is a matter for a teacher, whereas selection by aptitude is probably more a matter for the pupil himself or herself.
	My own experience, ancient as it is now, includes being educated at two comprehensive schools, including, during the war, one of the first comprehensives in Anglesey. I still remember being paralysed by the 11-plus exam, so much so that I could barely write my name on the paper. Even so, I had to pass the exam to get into that old county school, which was formerly a grammar school and was fast developing into a comprehensive school. Even in those early days, there was streaming—an A stream, a B stream and so on—in that school. Then, I had to pass exams—both a scholarship exam and the common entrance—to enter another comprehensive school, namely Harrow. Harrow ultimately was a comprehensive school in the sense that there was a tremendous amount of streaming of pupils with particular aptitudes.
	Although, as I say, we should forget the old battlegrounds represented by phrases such as selection by ability and selection by aptitude, such phrases should not inhibit those currently involved in education who may be thinking of innovative ideas.

Lord Dearing: I am sorry that we are not going to have the debate about the Beckhams, the Jaggers and the Isambard Kingdom Brunels. How do we best respond to the needs of children and young children? It is quite an important issue. If we cannot afford to provide excellence in all our schools for all these different aptitudes, there is an argument for saying—as the Government are doing—let us have some schools that are particularly well equipped in, for example, sport, engineering, languages or information technology, and reserve a modest proportion of those places for the young Beckhams and the young Jaggers.
	I do not think that that is antagonistic to the comprehensive principle. It seems to be saying, as sensibly as one can, "We have limited resources and cannot provide the best in all subjects in all our schools. So let us go for good standards everywhere, but, across the city as a whole, provide centres of excellence in particular areas". However, we shall hear more of that.
	Although we shall have the debate on faith schools on another day, I should like to make a couple of points now. Amendment No. 19 would, as I read it, fossilise the position. However, society is not static. A small city or big town, for example, might have a complete reorganisation of its schools. Following consultation with parents and others, it may decide, as I know one city has, to close a church school. Another aspect of the reorganisation, however, may be to expand another school and provide places that are distinctively for children from faith homes. Amendment No. 19 would stop that desirable reorganisation of provision in such places.
	I should also hope that we are a tolerant society in which we are willing to respond to the wishes of parents and local communities. Specifically, however, and as an advocate of church schools in particular circumstances, I would not want these powers to be used to circumvent the procedures which exist to ensure that we are truly meeting the needs and wishes of society. I would not want the Secretary of State to say, "No, we shall ignore the school's organisation committee, the process by which all proposals must go forward and be considered, and an objective of reaching unanimity". I would not want the Secretary of State to short-circuit that. I would therefore be with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, in not wanting to see these powers used to circumvent existing procedures.

Lord Rix: Is the noble Lord, Lord Peston, satisfied that the wording of Amendment No. 19 does not provide yet another excuse for excluding pupils with special educational needs with a particular aptitude for a particular subject?

Lord Brennan: I intervene only briefly, first to declare an interest that I did not expect to declare: I am the president of the Catholic Union of Great Britain. In speaking to a previous amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, remarked on the historical absurdity suggesting that Catholics are always wrong. For my brethren in the faith generally and for my fellow Peers of this faith, I reassure him and the House that we contribute matters that do not show that that absurdity is an absurdity.
	Secondly, and much more importantly, I speak because the question of faith schools is of particular importance, as the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, just indicated. I admire the spirit in which the noble Lord, Lord Peston, moved the amendment. His enthusiasm is remarkable. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will match that enthusiasm with the measure of care and discretion with which she clarifies the Government's position about safeguarding faith schools. Just as the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, was an absurdity, it is equally an absurdity to suggest that a faith school is not capable of innovation in education.

Baroness Blatch: I support the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan. It is a pity that we are not having a longer debate on some of these issues. I fully expect the Minister to support strongly the existence of faith schools and even the encouragement of more. I admire the tenacity and the good humour with which the noble Lord, Lord Peston, always enters into these debates. I have enjoyed engaging in debate with the noble Lord over a number of years. We entered this House on the same List and therefore we are approaching the same anniversary. The Minister gave the noble Lord reasonable assurances on the previous amendment. However, I hope and believe that that will not be the case as regards the amendment that we are at present discussing.
	It is right that children of families of a particular faith should be allowed to be selected for schools that support that faith. There is now a growth in the number of ecumenical schools. In Cambridge a Catholic and an Anglican school have been established and are working well. I hope that that process will be encouraged.
	I believe that specialist schools have worked well. The Government accepted them and have expanded their number. They have a policy aim to continue to expand that number. I believe that a later amendment will seek to expand the number of subjects that are offered. I refer to arts, music, sport, science and technology and languages. A moment ago I reminisced about various young people who had received a specialist education before we had state specialist schools. As a councillor in Cambridgeshire I helped a talented young violinist when my colleagues on the local authority said that his needs could be met in any of the local schools in Cambridgeshire. There was no doubt that many of those schools had strong music departments. Cambridgeshire prides itself on its good schools. However, the young boy went to Cheetham's school and was successful. The right decision was taken in that case. I am delighted that he went to that school. He enjoyed the specialist education which he received there.
	Languages, technology and science have progressed a great deal through innovation—the Clause 2 issue—in our city technology colleges which gave birth to the specialist colleges which I support. There is a strong argument for allowing selection on grounds of academic ability but certainly on grounds of faith and aptitude for specialist subjects. I do not think that I know of a school that selects on the basis of social class. I hope that such a school does not exist. I would not support that as the only criterion for selection. Certainly, we all know areas of the country where groups of people can afford to move to a particular area where schools have a good reputation. However, that is not a case of schools selecting pupils on the basis of social class but of parents being able to afford to move to an area with a school that has a good reputation. Let us make no mistake: if selection is denied, people will find ways to get their children in the best schools. However, that applies only to those who can afford to take certain action. Governments of any political persuasion should do what they can to support the children of families who cannot afford to move to an area with schools that would provide an education to meet the abilities and aptitudes of their children.

Baroness Walmsley: As we shall debate faith schools later I do not intend to address them at the moment. However, I wish to comment on the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, on selection by aptitude, even if we all understand what that means.
	When the Bill was debated in another place my honourable friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough encouraged the Government not only to allow all schools to be specialist schools but also to take away the right to select 10 per cent of students by aptitude partly because of the difficulty of knowing what that means but also because this is an area where the Government have already innovated and tried something out which has turned out to be rather unpopular. We know that only 6 per cent of existing specialist schools use the right to select by aptitude. That right has proved itself to be unwanted and unworkable and I therefore agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that we should not extend it.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: This is another debate which I sense heralds other debates to come. I shall try to address my remarks to the amendment in order to keep my powder dry for later. Again, we are considering how best to respond to the needs of all children. That is something which unites this Chamber and is something which makes me proud to be a Member of it.
	In addressing the amendment let me begin again by saying that the purpose of this power is to respond to proposals which will raise standards. If a proposal comes forward that would not raise standards, it could not be approved.
	As noble Lords will know, the admission arrangements for maintained schools are determined locally following a statutory consultation process. Admission authorities for schools must ensure that those arrangements comply with legislation and have regard to my department's code of practice on school admissions. Statutory parties to the consultation may object to the independent schools adjudicator if they are unhappy with any aspect of a school's determined admission arrangements. I cannot envisage a way in which a change to those arrangements could be argued to improve educational standards of children.
	The amendment refers to three types of selection—by aptitude, by social class and by religious affiliation. We legislated in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 to rule out any new selection by academic ability except for "fair banding" and sixth forms. I have set out the position on aptitude several times. I shall respect the tiredness of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, at this point in the day, but no doubt we shall return to the matter. I can be clear that we would not use the power to change that position. We are clear that any selection on the basis of social class is unacceptable and the code of practice on school admissions makes it clear that admissions authorities for schools should not set admissions criteria which have the effect of disadvantaging certain social groups in the local community. For example, we would not expect to see criteria that give priority for admission on the basis of a parent's occupation or income. I assure the Committee that any request to the Secretary of State for an order which would disadvantage a particular social class would have no chance of success.
	As the Committee will be aware, many schools of a religious character give priority for admission to adherents of a particular faith or denomination. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn mentioned that. That criterion forms part of a school's published admission arrangements and as such must be consulted on, as I described earlier, and may be the subject of objection to the schools adjudicator. As I said earlier, we could not envisage a use of the power to innovate to bypass that process.
	In conclusion, I do not believe that the noble Lord's amendment is necessary to achieve the protections he seeks. I hope that, given my assurances, he will agree to withdraw it.

Lord Peston: I thank my noble friend for that reply. I wish to make a few brief remarks. I say to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn that as regards social class and selection we have what we might call the "Mandy Rice-Davies" phenomenon here as regards asking any head about social class; namely, "He would, wouldn't he?" However, anyone who knows anything about the research into school admissions knows that a social class element definitely plays a role in some schools.
	I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, said; namely, that I am fighting on all battlegrounds, but not as regards every subject. When we discuss the reform of the curriculum and 14-16 education, even I shall reveal some new thoughts. The Committee will have to wait for that.
	I turn to selection, particularly by aptitude, which was discussed by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Let us assume that we continue with selection by aptitude, which has been legitimised. That would mean that all of our good footballers were in very few schools, likewise all our good artists and good musicians. We should ask ourselves—we are using our imagination—"Is that the kind of education system that we should like to have?". My view is that we should simply answer "No". I should like all children to attend schools in which some pupils are really rather good at art. In my school, some were but, unfortunately, I was not one of them. The notion that they—or the good footballers or good musicians—would not even be in such a school is the reason I oppose selection by aptitude.
	As the Minister is well aware, I am opposed to all that development on the part of the Government. In fact, it is worse than that; I regard that approach as a gimmick, and I believe that it will gradually die. Let us use our imagination and consider what would happen if we went down the path of selection by aptitude: we should end up with an educational system that, broadly, we should find very unattractive.
	We shall debate religious schools in due course, but I have a similar view in that regard. If the children of really committed religious people were all concentrated in just a few of our schools, I should regard that as a disaster for our country, let alone for education. That is why I am very concerned about the fact that, overwhelmingly, most children should be in our straightforward, ordinary schools. When we debate religious schools, our debate will not be about religion but about "inclusivity" and where we should like our children to be educated.
	That is where I am coming from. I thank the Minister for her answer and other noble Lords for taking part in this debate. This is certainly a theme to which we shall return. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Lucas: moved Amendment No. 20:
	Page 2, line 38, at end insert—
	"( ) No order shall be made under this section unless proper provision has been made for the independent evaluation of the effects of the project, and for the publication of that evaluation."

Lord Lucas: Many experiments will take place under the Bill, but what will become of their results? We shall spend much money, but what value shall we get from that five or 10 years down the road?
	Education is littered with experiments that have been tried and funded by the Department for Education but which have been allowed to die because nothing came out of them that was usable by other schools. There was no education pack, no route to follow and no training of other teachers; there was nothing that would allow a successful experiment to propagate in the system and nothing that would allow it even to continue in the schools in which it started. Many approaches have been started, given three or four years' funding by the education department and then left to themselves. Even if a new school wants to pick up some of the approaches, there is nothing that it can turn to.
	In addition, many educational theories and practices have been propagated without ever having been properly tested and without their educational value ever having been shown. Such practices were fashionable and the thing to do. They might be what the TES or some other authority said was the right thing to think about this year. Those nostrums propagate, just as has happened in the medical profession in former years. We need to ensure in education, as the Government have done in medicine, that the practice that is propagating around the system has been shown to be beneficial.
	The Government have introduced NICE, which is an innovation of which I thoroughly approve in the Department of Health. It is time that in education we had at least something to that effect, if not a body of that format. Educational research has always been extremely thin on the ground. Even when we are confronted with problems such as how best to treat special needs children or whether there are ways of educating dyslexics that are better, cheaper, quicker, more effective and more lasting than others—the Government are spending hundreds of millions of pounds on that every year—precious little research is done on which method works best. Down the years, that has cost us a great deal of money. I know that it takes some money up front to do such experiments, but unless one does the research when one is doing the innovating, at the end of the day one either has to continue with a project that one does not know has any value or one is left with a project with which one cannot do any good afterwards.
	That happens right at the core of the department. Ofsted has never done any decent research into whether its reports paint an accurate picture of schools. It has never submitted itself to external verification. It is extraordinary that an institution that was set up to assess how well schools were doing has never permitted itself to be analysed in that way by academics or anyone else. There should be a culture in education—as there is in medicine and other areas—of peer review, of innovations being tested against what other people think of them, of how well practices have actually performed, and of independent views being taken of the products of research and innovation. That is the basis on which we should seek to move forward in education.
	As we come to what I hope will be the beginning of a fascinating period of experimentation and ideas in education, we should set out in the right way and with a determination that what comes out of this approach should have been evaluated independently. That independent evaluation should be available to the public, other schools, and those who wish to take a critical view of what is happening. That will allow us to learn from what we are going to do and to take forward the best, not just what appears to be the best presented, when we look at what has been done. I beg to move.

Baroness Walmsley: I rise to support Amendment No. 20 on the grounds that there is a need for proper evaluation and transparency. I also wish to speak to Amendment No. 25, which is grouped with it.
	Proper evaluation and transparency are both good things, but so is accountability. The purpose of Amendment No. 25 is to ensure that the Secretary of State's decisions in relation to allowing certain schools to be exempt from education legislation are subject to parliamentary scrutiny. That will be done by introducing an obligation for the Secretary of State in England and the Assembly Cabinet Minister for Education in Wales to lay before Parliament or the Assembly, as appropriate, an annual report on the operation of the provisions of this chapter of the Bill. That would allow Members of Parliament or of the Assembly to question what has been done—that would, I hope, be done on the basis of independent evaluation—and to judge its efficacy.
	In her earlier remarks, the Minister expressed support for having an opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of innovations, so I hope that she will view these amendments with favour. What goes on in schools is of economic value. Undoubtedly, some schools will try to exploit that. It is far better that schools, rather than private companies, should be in a position to innovate. I hope that that will raise standards and disseminate best practice into other schools. But mistakes are often made when things are tried for the first time. It is therefore essential that there is an opportunity in the Bill for Parliament to assess what has been done and to give its opinion on whether that is in the best interests of our children.
	When the Bill was debated in another place, it was suggested that one innovation for which schools might apply might be that of charging for their services and ending the right to free education. The Minister assured Members of another place that that was an example of an innovation that would not be allowed. However, the Minister was not forthcoming with other examples of the sort of things that would not be allowed. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, has already pressed the Minister on precisely what sort of innovations really require this legislation. Perhaps the Minister can elaborate on that when she replies. Would the Government accept a reduction in the burden of statistical returns on schools as the sort of innovation for which they are looking? It is all the more important that accountability to Parliament and to the Welsh Assembly, as appropriate, should be mandatory and included in the Bill.

Lord Dormand of Easington: The proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, sounds fine, especially with regard to education, if I may say so. But does he agree that there is a problem in relation to the time factor? He says that the provision has to be made. That is the first thing, and that would take some time. Then there must be an independent evaluation, which, I suppose, would take even longer if it were to be of any value at all. We then come to the publication of the assessment or evaluation. There is also one other stage which the noble Lord did not mention—the consideration.
	In many cases, would it not take months and months to come to a decision? The noble Lord may say that it would be well worth it, and he may be right about that. However, does he agree that, if we were to go through all those stages for all or most of the projects in education, that would present a serious obstacle to what he is proposing?

Lord Lucas: I should like to see the noble Lord propose his system for medicine, whereby doctors would simply do whatever they wanted and would experiment on people in any way that they wanted. They would not be subject to a review of what they had done or be questioned as to the usefulness of what they had done. They would be allowed to publish a paper without peer review, and other people would then be encouraged to copy it if it happened to take their fancy. That is how it is in education. I hope that it will not be in most—

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Perhaps the noble Lord will give way. I could not resist intervening. Can I take it that he fully supports the introduction of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, which is designed to show that we have robust evidence of cost-effective clinical treatments?

Lord Lucas: Yes, but if the noble Lord had not been yacking to his medical colleagues on the Back Benches, he would have heard me say so.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I fear that—

Baroness Blatch: I shall be brief because I know that people are waiting to get on with the next debate. I would not normally support this type of amendment. I believe that evaluation should be carried out at school level. It seems to me that to be responsive to the parents and for validation to be carried out externally through inspection would be the right way to go.
	However, I shall support both Amendments Nos. 20 and 25, first, on the grounds that what the amendments seek to achieve would flush out the legislation that acts as an inhibitor, and therefore we should all be able to answer the question that the Minister is unable to answer today. Secondly, the annual report to Parliament would quantify the number of applications. However, I hope that, in addition, it would include the number of schools that would apply which would discover that they did not need legislative exemption at all. Thus, we would know what quantity of work had been involved in implementing the early part of the Bill.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I apologise for rising too early. I lost my grip on how the Committee stage works during the intervention from my noble friend.
	The purpose of the power to innovate is to pilot innovative proposals which might be adopted more widely through further legislation if they were successful in raising educational standards. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that the use of the power should receive proper evaluation and that, where appropriate, that evaluation should be independent and published. I can give the Committee the assurance that, because we want to learn the lessons of innovation, we shall certainly expect good quality evaluation of projects.
	However, I hope that the noble Lord will also recognise that the nature of evaluation will vary enormously, depending on the type and size of project involved, and so on. In some cases, for example, it is possible that interviews with people directly impacted will be sufficient; in others, it will require detailed performance analysis or survey work.
	We want to see evaluation that is fit for its purpose, with the proposer—whether it is a school or the local education authority—putting forward the kind of evaluation that is appropriate to the project. They will have the most direct experience of the projects and will have most to learn from the experience of the lessons being put into practice.
	We shall, of course, also have a keen interest in the lessons to be learned. We shall work with individual projects to ensure that good quality evaluation plans are in place to meet our need for information and to provide a basis for deciding how similar requests should be dealt with in future and whether more general legislative change would be a good thing.
	It may not always be appropriate to require the provision to be in place before a project has begun. In some cases, the development of the evaluation design may need to go hand in hand with the development of the pilot project itself. However, the guidance that I have placed in the Library of the House makes it absolutely clear that applicants will be required to develop an appropriate evaluation strategy. I hope that those reassurances are helpful to Members of the Committee.
	Turning to Amendment No. 25, we have also said that the power will end after four years. At that point, we shall want to review the effectiveness of the power to innovate, and so will Parliament.
	In addition to what I said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about the evaluation of projects, I want to make it clear to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, in relation to Amendment No. 25 that I agree that it is important to keep a public record of the use of the power. As I have said before, that is one of the reasons why it is important that the Secretary of State is involved in the process and can lay orders before Parliament. Her involvement ensures that, in every case where the power to innovate is used to disapply legislation, there will be a public record of exactly what has been disapplied, who the disapplication applies to and how long it will last.
	I believe that means that there will already be a full parliamentary and public record of the operation within the provisions of this chapter. However, I should like to consider carefully whether Amendment No. 25 or something similar should be introduced on Report. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will not move her amendment.

Baroness Walmsley: I am very encouraged by the Minister's answer. I thank her and look forward to hearing what she has say on Report.

Lord Lucas: I am very grateful for that reply. It is encouraging to see the Department for Education and Skills at last taking research seriously. I hope that that will expand into other areas of its activities. However, I am grateful for what the noble Baroness said, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 not moved.]
	Clause 2 agreed to.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving the Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.36 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Parkinson's Disease

Lord Harrison: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what care is provided for sufferers from Parkinson's disease.
	My Lords, Parkinson's disease,
	"is a gift that just keeps on taking".
	So writes Canadian actor, Michael J Fox, in his uplifting autobiography, Lucky Man, where he retails movingly his coming out with Parkinson's at the young age of 30.
	His embracing of the disease as something that has enriched his life—hence, the title, Lucky Man—is nothing short of heroic. But here in Britain every day a private tragedy is acted out by the 120,000 individuals similarly afflicted with Parkinson's, still conning their parts for a disease that locks fast minds in slow bodies. Their courage and fortitude matches Michael J Fox's but has no similar public arena. Tonight's debate, I hope, will throw some light on a disease that is still little understood in contemporary Britain.
	For most of us, Parkinson's is a chat show, not an affliction whose symptoms are tremors, stiffness and rigidity of the limbs, poverty of movement, pain, depression, fatigue and, sometimes, loss of expression in the face and voice. There is nothing theatrical about the rictus of pain borne by Parkinson's sufferers.
	Nor are the disease's consequences restricted to those sufferers. In their penumbra stand the families, friends, medics, support services, and the cherished Parkinson's Disease Society itself, serving to mitigate the worst effects of the disease on their charges. They, too, in my book, deserve Oscars.
	As vice-president of the Chester and District PDS, it has been my privilege to meet and learn from this close community, dedicated to defeating Parkinson's. And victory is in the wings. The research at Frenchay Hospital in Bristol in regenerating dormant dopamine-producing cells is heartening indeed. Moreover, any team boasting Billy Graham, Muhammad Ali, the Pope and the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, on its side should have something going for success.
	What can this House do to help? Our Select Committee's recent report, wisely setting down the conditions for innovative stem cell research, was a major advance. On a lighter note, the promotion of the PDS schools project card by the education Minister, my noble friend Lady Ashton, is a useful step in improving public understanding of the disease. But more needs to be done, and the Government are in a good position to help, especially in the aftermath of the recent Budget, dedicated to putting the NHS and, I hope, Parkinson's sufferers back on their feet.
	Mis-diagnosis is a major bugbear in the treatment of Parkinson's disease. As many as three out of 10 patients are mis-diagnosed, but we are desperately short of those specialist neurologists who are key to the correct diagnosis of Parkinson's. The 350 neurologists in the United Kingdom today fall woefully short of the 1,000 needed to make a compelling difference. In Britain we have one neurologist to 177,000 of the population. France boasts a ratio of one to 38,000, Holland one to 25,000 and the United States one to 20,000. Indeed, our overworked complement of 350 practising neurologists today is equivalent to the number of neurologists America had at the end of World War II. They are overworked so that in my region of Merseyside neurologists have kindly volunteered to work gratis Sunday morning and evening clinics to ensure that the Government's target of a 26-week waiting limit for new referrals is met. The new, proposed 20-week limit is the straw that could break the camel's back. It really is time for this sensible Government to invest long term in Parkinson's. It is a mammoth task. Even if we increase numbers by 5 per cent a year, it will not be until 2034 that we have our full complement of needed neurologists.
	General practitioners, too, need help. The relative rarity of the disease in my view requires that each primary care trust should appoint a lead GP able to advise colleagues about diagnosis and referral, problems which particularly touch the young and the elderly.
	Nursing specialists and welfare visitors, too, are vital. We need 125 more of the former and we should fund the latter. Why is it up to the local PDS branches to fund the vital welfare visitors? It is time to throw good money after good to complete the job of developing a modern, comprehensive health service.
	Will my noble friend the Minister also review the Statutory Instrument changing the rules for qualifying for disability living allowance for PD sufferers? Does the Minister agree that because of the on-off syndrome associated with the disease, ability to walk, aided or unaided, should be judged over a seven-day period and not by single consultation? Can my noble friend say what the Government are doing to promote best practice among hospital and care home staff about the particular needs of Parkinson's sufferers; for example, ensuring that the vital medication is taken at the time of need and not wait for the drug round? Will the Government ensure that the smaller number of people who have young onset Parkinson's are exempted from prescription charges?
	As regards brain pacemakers whose deep brain stimulation helps reduce tremors, do the Government recognise that fewer than one in 20 British patients currently benefit compared to one in three Swiss and one in 10 French? Can this situation be improved? Are the Government committed to introducing best practice from the Continent as promoted by the European Parkinson's Disease Association?
	I conclude with the "Start of Coastin'" campaign of Tom Isaacs, a 33-year old sufferer who is currently walking the coast of Britain to raise awareness of Parkinson's. Is it not time that we stopped coasting on Parkinson's and accelerated help and encouragement to the lucky men and women who daily struggle so defiantly with this, the most deadly and debilitating of diseases? For Michael J Fox and all his fellow sufferers in Britain, is it not time that we got back to the future?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, it might be helpful to the House to mention that we have very limited time for the debate this evening and that if later speakers are not to suffer, it will be necessary for speeches to end when the clock turns to four minutes.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, for asking this most important question. Unfortunately, I have to declare an interest, as my husband was found to have Parkinson's, but this was some time after he had had two strokes and was found to be a diabetic. While in hospital he developed a deep vein thrombosis, which he was discharged with and had to be re-admitted to another hospital as an emergency. After returning home he had a bleed in the brain from too much warfarin, which had not been adequately monitored by the GPs. I was getting desperate, and with advice from a friend who is a neurologist, I brought my husband to London for assessment. Parkinson's disease was diagnosed at St Mary's hospital, Paddington.
	It seems that there is still a great deal to learn about this complicated condition. What triggers it? Does it lie dormant? I know several people with it. It was revealing last week to hear Michael J Fox, the American actor, who developed Parkinson's while quite young, telling his story during Parkinson's Awareness Week.
	There are many tips which can be passed on, such as kicking the ankle when the Parkinson's sufferer freezes; by putting white sticks on the ground to help them lift their feet or drink iced water to help swallowing. There is a useful booklet Looking After Your Bladder in Parkinsonism. It is a joint project by the Continence Foundation, the Parkinson's Disease Society and the Royal College of Nursing.
	The specialist Parkinson's trained nurse can be of immense help to colleagues, patients and their carers. Last week I was told by an academic GP that there are only two such nurses in the whole of the West Midlands. I believe that there is not one in North Yorkshire. I cannot over-emphasise the immense help and value specialist advice gives, particularly in the monitoring of drugs, which can make all the difference to Parkinson's patients.
	It is very clear that in the UK we have far fewer consultant neurologists than in all other European countries for which there are available data. There are so few neurologists in this country that most hospitals do not have a neurologist who is on site, especially in the north. The management of such patients is heavily dependent on the type of hospital into which the patient is admitted. It is a post-code lottery. That is not acceptable. If there are to be advances in the treatment of Parkinson's and these are to be available to all who need it, there must be more neurology centres of excellence. The Government have shown their determination to make the NHS work by allocating more money. It must go on patient care, not management power building.
	The importance of professional interaction with specialist colleagues cannot be overestimated, for such contacts are a constant source of advice and education. There must be a specialist neurology network throughout the country if people with Parkinson's disease are to get the care they need.

Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend for giving us the opportunity to debate this important issue. I declare an interest as vice-president of both the Parkinson's Disease Society and of Carers UK.
	I want to concentrate on the problems faced by those who have responsibility for caring for people with Parkinson's disease; the family members who willingly and with love provide care, often over a long period of time and often because of the particular physical and emotional changes which are the result of this most cruel of illnesses, at great personal cost, economically, physically and emotionally.
	However, I must first acknowledge the great progress that has been made for family carers both through the unrelenting campaigning of my colleagues at Carers UK and the Parkinson's Disease Society and through the sympathetic approach adopted by this Government. For example, the earnings limit on invalid care allowance has risen from £50 to £72. Proposals are in hand to re-name ICA carers' allowance and to allow carers over the age of 65 to claim invalid care allowance for the first time. The changes will also extend the payment of the care allowance for eight weeks after the death of the person being cared for.
	Then there is the carer's grant, amounting to £85 million this year, and £100 million for the next and final year, which will enable local authorities to provide breaks for carers. This has produced some really innovative developments, including joint working between social services and the NHS. Then there is the state second pension, which will give carers in receipt of ICA a credit towards the second pension. Similarly, we should not forget the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000, which I had the honour of taking through your Lordships' House. For the first time, this legislation gives carers a right to support services.
	However, we cannot deny that many carers—perhaps most—remain isolated and unsupported. Perhaps I may highlight one or two areas of difficulty. Let us take, for example, hospital discharge. The report based on carers' experiences You Can Take Him Home Now, published by Carers UK last year, found that carers were overlooked, that their needs were not assessed, and that the person for whom they cared was discharged too soon.
	I turn to funding under the Carers and Disabled Children Act, which is a serious problem. The Labour Party manifesto promised such funding, but a recent survey showed that only 18 per cent of local authorities found new resources last year to implement the Act's provisions. Many of those who care for someone suffering from Parkinson's disease understand that the identification of carers by GPs is vital. The National Strategy for Carers stated that GPs should have the systems in place by April 2000. However, the deadline was later extended to April 2002. Can my noble friend the Minister tell us whether his department has provided GPs with any information in this respect?
	If any justification were needed for calling for more support for carers, it was made very clear in the report published by Carers UK, Without Us. The report shows that, if we had to provide substitute care for the care that carers provide, largely free of cost, we would, as a nation, have to find another £57 billion each year—the cost of another NHS. Those new figures are 70 per cent higher than the £34 billion that we have been using for some years. They show that the average carer saves the United Kingdom £10,000 every year.
	The rise in the value of carers' support can be put down to three factors. First, the cost of replacement care increasing; secondly, the number of carers providing "significant" care having risen owing to funding for health and social care failing to keep pace with demand; and, thirdly, the fact that although more domiciliary care is provided in the community it concentrates on fewer people—with carers inevitably making up the shortfall.
	The rise in the value of carers' support is a warning to policy makers about the extent to which our economy relies on the care provided by family and friends. It shows that if only a small number were to give up caring, perhaps through ill health or lack of support—who would blame any carer of someone with Parkinson's disease if he or she did so?—the economic impact would be dramatic. Given our future demographics and ageing population, it shows an urgent need for better recognition and support for carers.

Baroness Gale: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank my noble friend Lord Harrison for bringing this important debate before the House. Parkinson's disease affects not just the sufferer but the whole family. I speak with some knowledge on how the effects of the disease can also affect members of the family who live with it every day. My father was a victim of the disease. He was diagnosed at the age of 50, although he had obviously been suffering for several years previously. At that time, in the late 1950s, there was very little knowledge, research, or understanding of Parkinson's disease. It took a long time to diagnose my father's illness. Can noble Lords imagine being ill and not knowing what is wrong—and eventually being diagnosed of an illness which cannot be cured; where GPs have little knowledge and cannot offer much help other than to prescribe pain killers; where there is no support group, and no one to turn to for advice or help?
	About 10 years later I discovered that the Parkinson's Disease Society had just been formed. I remember reading a letter in a daily newspaper from a Miss Jenkins, who wrote about the society. I contacted her immediately asking for more information. She had formed the society. Her sister had Parkinson's disease. They had found there was so little information available that they resolved to do something about it. I even had a visit from Miss Jenkins one day. It was good to learn from her of the work that was being undertaken. I received much information from the society, which I always passed on to my mother. She would then take it to our GP. I recall her saying that the doctor was very interested to receive the information, as he knew very little about Parkinson's disease.
	I know that times have changed. However, I should like to pay tribute to the wonderful work that the Parkinson's Disease Society is doing. Since its earliest day, it has ensured that research has been carried out and that progress has been made. There are now 286 branches with 27,000 members. Imagine now how much help and support those people are able to offer sufferers and their families. The research that the society carries out has brought new hope for sufferers, although, as we know, there is still a long way to go.
	The situation has improved. On the medical side, more help is available to alleviate the symptoms associated with Parkinson's. Carers are now available to assist the family looking after a sufferer, and more financial help is available. But there is still much more that can be done to alleviate the problems, and to work with the sufferer and the family to help them to have a better quality of life.
	The Parkinson's Disease Society is calling for more investment to ensure that there are more physiotherapists, speech and language therapists, and occupational therapists. It says that the provision of support for therapists is uneven and that national standards must be put in place and enforced. If this request alone could be granted, I am certain that it would be of tremendous help to sufferers.
	In conclusion, much has been achieved over the years in the help and support available for the sufferers of Parkinson's disease. It is to be hoped that a cure may be found one day. In the mean time, every effort must be made to give as much help and support as possible so that sufferers and their families can be helped to live as normal a life as possible within the constraints of medical and community support.

Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, what I shall say in this short debate is mainly about the need to ensure that the potential new research and treatments for Parkinsons's disease—in particular, a very recent development—are followed through and adequately funded. That does not mean that I underrate the importance of the work being undertaken and planned for the care of Parkinson's sufferers; indeed, we have about 120,000 people in the United Kingdom with the disease. It is clear that there are problems with both the patient and the carer, which we must not forget.
	However, I turn to the point that I wish to draw to the Minister's attention. The noble Lord will have noticed the recent announcement by the North Bristol NHS Trust of a pilot study at Frenchay Hospital, which may provide a breakthrough in the treatment of Parkinson's disease. There have been many false dawns in the treatment of this disease; and, in my view, that makes it all the more important that we should follow up these treatments, which—admittedly, in a very small sample—have shown a marked improvement in the symptoms for the patients treated.
	The team at the Frenchay Hospital was led by Steven Gill, a consultant neurosurgeon, with Peter Heywood, a consultant neurologist, Nik Patel, a neurosurgeon, and Karen O'Sullivan, who is a specialist nurse. It gives me pleasure to mention the specialist nurses, who are sometimes—but not in this case—forgotten. The treatment involves planting a catheter in a specific region of the brain that controls movement and is deficient in dopamine. Without dopamine the nerve cells cannot properly transmit messages to the body, and this results in deterioration in movement. A pump then transmits to this area of the brain GDNF (glial-derived neurotrophic factor), which is a natural growth factor required for the development and maintenance of nerve cells producing dopamine.
	There has been a clear improvement in the symptoms of the patients treated, and there is evidence from other sources that GDNF can block the degeneration of nerve cells. We can say that it can work, and that it has worked. What is important now is to move on to a larger scale trial because we do not know if the improvement is sustainable, or whether there may be unintended consequences.
	I should say that I have a personal interest. I recently spent 10 days in the neurological ward of the Frenchay Hospital, under the care of Dr Heywood, which increased my interest in the possibilities of a more effective treatment of Parkinson's disease. Although, in some ways, 10 days in Frenchay Hospital was more interesting than 10 days in your Lordships' House, inevitably I spent some time playing cards with patients suffering from Parkinson's disease. I was, therefore, particularly pleased to see the comment made by Roger Nelson, who received the new treatment:
	"I got to the stage where I could not deal or shuffle the cards, but now I can fan the cards, pick them out and play again".
	I understand that the research and pilot study have been funded by the Parkinson's Disease Society. I thank the society for that. But such charitable organisations are not wealthy and the point of my intervention today is to draw to the Minister's attention that, in my view, there is an obligation on the Department of Health to ensure that the next stage of the study does not fail because of lack of funding. I do not say that it should necessarily be funded by the Government, but by one means or another—perhaps by potential support from medical foundations or other organisations—the Minister should take care that this small-scale study does not stop at this stage, but has enough funding to go on to show whether it can provide even more benefits for those suffering from Parkinson's disease.

Lord Brookman: My Lords, I agree with other noble Lords that my noble friend Lord Harrison is to be complimented and thanked for raising the subject of Parkinson's disease, with particular reference to care and carers.
	I declare an interest. I have an elder brother who suffers from Parkinson's disease. Knowing of his acute problems and the wonderful support given by his wife and family is one of the key reasons for putting my name down to speak.
	Parkinson's disease awareness week was held in April. The admirable organisation, the Parkinson's Disease Society, founded in 1969 by a carer, Mali Jenkins—a People's Peer if ever there was one—makes a telling point that Parkinson's disease affects all aspects of daily life for the individual and for the family who must also live with the condition.
	Our hearts go out to all who suffer from the disease— some 120,000 in the UK alone—and to the tens of thousands who live with the disease by being partners, families and children of a sufferer. We who see loved ones suffering are unable to comprehend fully the magnitude of the problem facing those living with and caring for those suffering from the dreadful disease.
	This debate gives us the opportunity to highlight the work of the Parkinson's Disease Society. Its guiding principles of research, support, information and advice require our support and that of the Government. As the society states:
	"It is estimated that the current level of people over the age of 60 would increase by some 53 per cent by 2030—12.2 million to 18.7 million".
	Clearly, that will affect the number suffering with Parkinson's disease and other neurological conditions.
	I am in no way a medical person, so reading some of the research undertaken by the society is very luminous. Currently there is no cure for the disease, but as research continues there will always be hope. Medication—that is drug treatment—and surgical interventions together with other therapies can and do play a part. But sadly serious shortfalls in neurologists, other specialists and Parkinson's disease nurse specialists make life difficult for those working in this area. To the best of my knowledge no nurse visits my brother. I believe that one should be available but it could be that Welsh stubbornness plays its part in that.
	Investment is required in those areas, and I hope that the well-received announcements by the Chancellor in his Budget will ensure that those objectives are met. We all agree that Parkinson's disease is a dreadful illness and that although much is happening, and much has happened, more adequate support for those suffering from the disease is essential. The wonderful carers, specialist nurses, neurologists and other specialists deserve nothing less. I sincerely hope that the Government, working closely with the society and others, will bring about a better life and a better way forward for people like my brother. I await with interest to hear the views of the Minister.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I declare an interest as a hospice doctor who has cared for patients with end-stage Parkinson's disease, some of whom have been remarkably young and alarmingly rigid and unable to move.
	My points relate to specialist services in the new NHS and to the importance of research as well as education and training. The care of patients depends crucially on an accurate diagnosis. If the diagnosis is wrong, the care will not be right. Diagnostic error is surprisingly common, to quote the textbook of the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant. It requires neurologically-trained doctors to make an accurate diagnosis. Parkinson's disease is a common condition. One in 100 people over 65 and one in 50 people over 80 will suffer from it. Sadly, one can see that instance reflected among the Members of this House.
	There is an alarming shortage of neurologists. The noble Lord, Lord Brookman, spoke of his relative. Wales is even worse off compared with the rest of the UK. We have only one neurologist for every 277,000 of the population, which means that France, which has the next lowest ratio in Europe, has more than seven times as many neurologists per head of population than Wales.
	There is a shortage of fully-resourced specialist centres for treatment and for research. Levodopa, the drug that was thought to be the gold standard in the 1970s, is effective. Prior to Levodopa the life expectancy of patients was, on average, nine years, but sadly the effectiveness of the drug wanes after five to 10 years. The situation is worse in young people. Patients whose disease starts under the age of 40 have a much more rapid failure of levodopa, so that by the time they have spent six years on treatment 100 per cent have complications from treatment and no longer benefit. It is important to note that one in 20 patients with the disease is under 40 at the time of diagnosis.
	Many noble Lords will have seen the film "Awakenings" or read the book by Oliver Sachs that describes the great difference that dopamine-type drugs made in the post-viral Parkinsonism that was seen in New York. Levodopa and the other drugs have nasty side-effects, but there are exciting horizons in combining drugs with new delivery systems, including ways of delivering them through neurosurgery, as we have already heard.
	Neurosurgery is not that expensive. I have done some cost calculations on deep-brain stimulation with the help of Mr Gill from Bristol. About 10 per cent of patients with Parkinson's disease may benefit from deep-brain stimulation, but it is offered to only about 0.1 per cent because of financial constraints. Patients' quality-of-life scores improve by 70 per cent and patients post-operatively have about 60 to 70 per cent of their day mobile, whereas it is only about 10 per cent pre-operatively.
	The costings are that the deep-brain stimulator costs between £10,000 and £12,000; the surgery and support cost between £10,000 and £15,000; and the battery, costing £8,000, has to be replaced after five to eight years, giving a total cost of between £30,000 and £35,000. The drug requirements of patients fall by about 50 per cent post-operatively. The medication costs alone for a patient over five years who does not have surgery total about £80,000. So there is a significant saving of at least £5,000 per patient over five years. That is comparing the drug costs with the surgery costs and before one counts the savings in care costs. I point out that not only are specialist services and research needed, but that such a treatment may save costs in the long term.
	My final plea is as a hospice doctor. Nowhere in the UK is there 50 per cent funding of hospices. Mostly, they are charitably funded from cancer care charities. Sadly, that means that Parkinson's disease patients sometimes miss out because cancer patients tend to be taken as a priority over those with neurological disease. I urge the Government to look at specialist services as a saving and not as a major cost.

Lord Turnberg: My Lords, I want to concentrate my remarks on the need for research into this extremely distressing condition. Here I express an interest as scientific adviser to the Association of Medical Research Charities, of which the Parkinson's Disease Society is a member.
	The fact is that despite an enormous amount of research effort we still have few clues about why the disease occurs, and our current treatments, I am afraid, are somewhat limited. It is only by more basic research that we can hope to break through this barrier of ignorance. And of course there are some fascinating glimpses of greater understanding and new treatments.
	The genes which contribute to the disease are being elucidated and the biochemical disturbances underlying it are gradually being clarified. New forms of treatment—injection of stem cells of various sorts into the damaged areas of the brain; infusions of a neural growth factor, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, are proving interesting; electrical stimulation—all offer some hope. But there is an awful long way to go before we know whether any of those will really be successful for large numbers of patients for any length of time. And meanwhile we must press on with the research.
	Yet there are many barriers to research which we have to overcome, and I do not just mean funding. Of course we need more funding. But I want to concentrate specifically on the barriers put up by public attitudes to research. While the 120,000 or so patients with Parkinson's disease and their relatives and carers are desperate for the research, others are more antipathetic. For example, there is antipathy to research using animals, when we know that animal research is able to give us enormous insights into the disease. The recently developed genetically modified mouse model of Parkinson's is an invaluable tool to study mechanisms of the disease and to try new treatments. But animal research has come under fire from a range of quarters.
	Then there has been the antagonism to research using human embryonic stem cells, which again offers enormous potential for treatment. Though your Lordships' House has done a major service in its rational recommendations on stem cell research, there remains a little anxiety that that area of research may be threatened.
	Perhaps a bigger threat is the fall-out from the Alder Hey affair, which has posed a major threat to the acquisition of human tissues on which so much important research depends. The Redfern report, written against a highly charged background, has caused—perhaps inadvertently—untold damage to research which is dependent on human tissues.
	There are a whole range of other barriers to research, but I wanted to concentrate on those which relate to public attitudes. My question for the Minister will perhaps give him an opportunity to say what I know he really believes. Do the Government take these threats to research—the animal issue, the human tissue issue and the stem cell issue—seriously? I look forward to his response.

Lord Addington: My Lords, it is very difficult in four minutes to try to sum up the attitude of this debate, so I shall not try. But this debate has shown that whatever increase in funding is given to the National Health Service can certainly be spent very easily. Also, when we are calling for extra resources we are generally asking for extra people to be employed and for them to be better trained.
	We then come on to the area which interests me most, and I shall try to address my remarks to that, though I feel slightly guilty because it is not the noble Lord's department to which my comments will be directed. Therefore I charge him with the duty of passing on to the Department for Work and Pensions my comments in relation to the tests it is implementing to allow a person to claim the lower mobility rate for the disability living allowance.
	One of the criteria in the test is that one should be unable to go outside without support. Unfortunately, people with Parkinson's, as with other conditions such as multiple sclerosis, have good days and bad days; there are periods when the disease is particularly active and periods when it is not. That means that the assessment of medical need will have to be conducted over a period of time. It means that there will have to be some form of medical input or at least a reference to medical records over a long period of time. That will make it more difficult for people to be correctly assessed for the right allowances which the Government say people should receive.
	Will the Department of Health tell the Department for Work and Pensions to be flexible? The current proposals going through the parliamentary system must have the capacity to be flexible to give help to the people it is intended should receive it. Unless we manage to do that—this is merely an example of the practice—unless we can break through those Chinese walls, we will end up misspending money. A problem in one department can have knock-on costs in another.
	If somebody is unsure on their feet and every second day falls over, we will end up treating them on the National Health Service. Thus the budgets may be eaten up in casualty departments. That may be a trite way of putting it, but the principle is generally accepted.
	When it comes to dealing with these problems we have to look sideways as well. There are knock-on benefits from having more therapists—particularly physiotherapists—trained within the health service, even if a high percentage of their time is put aside for dealing with such conditions as Parkinson's disease, as we will still end up with greater resources for investment in other parts of the health service. I hope that the Government, when looking to help in this area, will always keep a weather eye on those knock-on benefits.

Earl Howe: My Lords, if this short debate has brought home one message, it is surely the devastating nature of Parkinson's disease and the scale of the suffering it causes. Some 120,000 people in this country are currently afflicted with it. That statistic alone should make us appreciate how vital it is that timely diagnosis and effective treatment should be accessible on the NHS, and I join other noble Lords in expressing my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, for giving us the opportunity to debate those issues.
	Parkinson's presents doctors with an inherent difficulty: there is no clinical test for it. Misdiagnosis, both false positive and false negative, can, and frequently does, occur. That is perhaps not surprising given that some of the initial symptoms of PD are shared by other neurological conditions. But that difficulty is compounded by the fact that diagnosing Parkinson's is outside the range of expertise of many, if not most, GPs because the number of patients suffering from it per practice will on average be very few. That means that most GPs as a matter of routine refer suspected cases of Parkinson's to a neurological specialist.
	The waiting time to see a specialist is often long. We are very short indeed of neurologists in this country, as most noble Lords have said. At present there are only 350 of them and of those only around 60 have specific expertise in Parkinson's. That is about half the number we should have in relation to the size of our population and several times fewer per head of population than many other European countries. Like other noble Lords, I hope that the Minister can comment on that issue.
	We are also short of nurse specialists who give a vital service to patients and their families. The care of a Parkinson's patient is not just about providing appropriate medication; it is also about making sure that he or she receives emotional support as well as all the right information about how to manage the disease. The better the support, the longer a patient can maintain independence and the lower the cost of care to the public purse. What plans are there to increase the number of specialist nurses?
	The Social Policy Ageing and Information Network reported last year that the lives of 1 million elderly people are at risk because they are not getting basic care and support at home and there are too few places in suitable residential care homes. That leads to nearly 700,000 delayed discharges from hospitals every year. The Government have provided specific funding to sort out such delays, but I doubt whether the sums earmarked will go very far towards funding the necessary degree of long-term support and social care for those very vulnerable individuals who cannot look after themselves.
	Setting aside delayed discharges, hospital is not always the best place to be a Parkinson's disease patient. Many sufferers reported that hospital staff simply do not appreciate that medication for Parkinson's is time critical. The consequences of delaying medication even briefly can be extremely serious. I too should like to pay tribute to the Parkinson's Disease Society which has done so much to raise awareness about the disease and to provide information and support to patients. The unnecessary errors in the treatment of Parkinson's disease patients in hospital have been highlighted by the society as one example of the need for awareness-raising in the broadest sense.
	Like other noble Lords, I look forward to the publication of the national service framework. I wish that that could take place sooner than 2005. However, the longer-term future for PD treatment looks exciting. A number of advances emerging from research, including deep-brain stimulation, new drugs, neurosurgery by robot, brain tissue transplants and recent discoveries in genetics provide real hope that this distressing condition will one day be overcome. I hope that the UK—indeed, the NHS—will be in the vanguard of harnessing proven advances in treatment to the benefit of patients.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I echo the words of other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Harrison for initiating this debate. The fact that so many noble Lords spoke suggests that the debate has been well worth while and I am sorry that the time available is so short.
	My noble friend Lord Harrison described well the experience of people with Parkinson's disease. My noble friend Lord Brookman reminded us of the impact on their loved ones. My noble friend Lord Harrison spoke about the close community dedicated to conquering the disease and to helping and supporting those who suffer from it. They are a large number of people. It is estimated that there are approximately 18 new cases per 100,000 people each year and that more than 120,000 people in the UK have Parkinson's disease.
	It is also clear that there are big challenges to face over diagnosis, speedy referral, appropriate services and appropriate support. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred to the national service framework for long-term conditions, which will give us a clear framework to deal with diagnosis, rapid referral and appropriate services.
	In February 2001, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced the development of a national service framework for long-term conditions. It will have a particular focus on people with neurological conditions and brain and spinal injury, including services for people with epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, motor neurone disease and other similar conditions. We intend to consult a wide range of stakeholders—that will be a feature throughout the development of national service frameworks. Already, voluntary and professional organisations, including the Parkinson's Disease Society, patients, carers and experts have been involved in the early scoping work.
	The noble Earl, Lord Howe, expressed disappointment about the timetable. I, too, wish that we could introduce national service frameworks more quickly, but we must recognise that there must be a proper timetable. We must ensure that the service is able to take on new responsibilities that will be placed on it. The importance of national service frameworks cannot be underestimated. Their implementation should ensure that we get consistency, good quality services and reduced regional variations and inequalities in access to those services. In the long run, people suffering from Parkinson's disease will undoubtedly benefit from those improvements. But, of course, I understand the frustrations of those who wish that the national service frameworks could have been introduced earlier than 2005.
	Several noble Lords, including my noble friends Lord Brookman and Lord Harrison, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, raised the question of the number of neurologists. There is no question that we have an acute shortage of neurologists. We have set out clear plans to increase the number of consultants generally. Of course, within that, there will be an increase in the number of neurologists. We have already announced a increase of up to 15 specialist registrars in neurology for 2002-04. The long-term conditions care group workforce team is considering a workforce strategy to underpin the national service frameworks to which I referred.
	An additional 140 trained specialists will be available to take up consultant posts in neurology by 2009. That is a significant increase, but I recognise that noble Lords would want us to go further. Without giving any commitment, the national service framework and the workforce planning that will need to go alongside will give us a further opportunity to consider those figures.
	Of course, although consultant neurologists are vital, it is not just doctors who are needed. I was glad that several noble Lords—in particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton—referred to the critical importance of specialist nurses. The first specialist Parkinson's disease nurses in the NHS were appointed in 1989. Let me place on record the Government's tribute to the work of such nurses. They are traditionally developed and initially funded by the Parkinson's Disease Society, with the NHS taking over funding after one or two years. The role of the nurse is to co-ordinate the care of those with the condition and provide a reliable source of information and support. Such nurses are instrumental in raising awareness of education and training. There is no doubt that they are making a wonderful impact by supporting and improving the lives of people affected by Parkinson's disease.
	I also listened with great interest to what was said about general practitioners and their skills in this area. Again, the national service framework will help, but it is also worth mentioning our initiative to encourage GPs to develop special clinical interests. That is an area of great potential and I hope that primary care trusts will take that to heart as they develop their plans for the future.
	The noble Earl, Lord Howe, raised the issue of residential care, as he frequently does. The new incentive systems that we propose for delayed discharges and the increase in the personal social services budget for the next three years will enhance the viability of care homes. We may just touch on that issue again next Wednesday.
	Several noble Lords, including my noble friends Lady Gale and Lord Brookman, mentioned the Parkinson's Disease Society. I have already referred to the immensely valuable work that it is undertaking, but that allows me to pay tribute to Mary Baker, its previous leader. What tremendous work she did. It is good that she is now President of the European Parkinson's Disease Association. I am sure that what she did in the UK will now be done in Europe. I pity the bureaucrats of Brussels—but not much. Her successor, Linda Kelly, is taking on the good work and we offer her every support.
	We have no intention to extend the current exemption arrangements for prescription charges. More than 85 per cent of NHS prescription items are dispensed free of charge, and we think that that is the best approach. Also, those who pay prescription charges can seek help under the NHS low income scheme or through purchase of a prescription pre-payment certificate.
	My noble friend Lady Pitkeathley mentioned carers. No one in the country knows more about the issue than my noble friend. She paid tribute to our national carers strategy—but of course, she played such a crucial role in its development and continuing improvement. She mentioned the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000, which she took through your Lordships' House. It is an important framework and foundation for the continued development and support of carers. My noble friend kindly gave me notice that she would raise the issue of the survey carried out by the Association of Directors of Social Services of progress in the assessment of carers. I know that it expresses some disappointment about the progress that has been made. We shall study the survey results with great care. My noble friend asked about funding, and the survey results will be helpful when we consider future spending plans in the 2002 spending review.
	I accept that we need to know more about the identification of carers by GPs. Given the time available, I offer to write to the noble Baroness setting out the position in respect of that important issue.
	The noble Lord, Lord Addington, raised the issue of the Social Security (Disability Living Allowance) (Amendment) Regulations 2002 and the specific issue of flexibility in relation to good and bad days. I shall discuss it with the Department for Work and Pensions and come back to the noble Lord. I am aware of the issue, but I would like to consider it in more detail.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, raised the important issue of palliative care. She will know that, in England, we are committed to matching the money raised by the voluntary sector with the money that the NHS spends, including grants to the voluntary sector. I do not know the position in Wales, but we are aware of the funding issues. I recognise the competitiveness of the arena in which voluntary organisations must raise funds, and I spoke to the Association of Fundraisers in Palliative Care on Sunday. It is important that the hospice movement should maintain its independence. The fact that it raises so much money enhances that independence.
	My noble friend Lord Turnberg raised several important issues relating to research and spoke about barriers. I shall respond on the issue of animal research. I have been distressed by the activities of some people in this country who have sought, through the most disgraceful methods, to hinder, threaten and intimidate people going about their lawful business and conducting research that will have an enormous impact on the improvement of conditions for many people.
	Noble Lords will know that the Government have taken action. We have legislated, and we support properly regulated research that attempts to reduce and minimise the number of animals used in research. Ultimately, however, I am convinced that we must use animals, and I offer my wholehearted support to the reputable people who do that. We cannot allow a situation in which the people who do such research are intimidated. The sort of intimidation which places like Huntingdon Life Sciences have had to put up with only fills me with tremendous admiration for the people who work in such laboratories.
	We had an interesting discussion about the research that is now available. We are considering the clinical effectiveness of deep-brain stimulation. The MRC is funding a research trial, and the Parkinson's Disease Society has also put a considerable amount of money into that trial. I understand that the trial will run for five years, to 2006, with a further five-year follow-up period. Unfortunately, proper, robust research takes time, but we must do it to inform the future development of services.
	The Frenchay Hospital research is extremely interesting. As the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, suggested, it may provide a breakthrough in the treatment of the condition. The preliminary results show a marked improvement in the symptoms of all five patients. My understanding is that it is the first time that such improvement has occurred in patients with a chronic neurological disease following the infusion of a growth factor.
	I understand that the trust concerned receives a considerable amount of money from the NHS research and development fund. However, I am happy to examine the funding in more detail to see whether there are any problems. I shall come back to the noble Lord on that.
	Time is against me. It has been an invaluable debate, and there are more things that we must do. In particular, I listened carefully to what was said about guidance and training to enable speedy diagnosis, referral and provision of services. We must consider workforce planning, and the NSF will be helpful when we examine staff numbers. Above all, we must ensure that the NHS provides the sensitive support services that are required by people who suffer from Parkinson's disease.
	I end by congratulating my noble friend on raising so many important issues. I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke. Undoubtedly, our debate will inform the development of policy in the department, and I shall make sure that the relevant columns of Hansard are brought to the attention of those working on the national service framework.

Education Bill

House again in Committee.
	Clause 3 [Variation or revocation of orders under Section 2]:
	[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
	Clause 3 agreed to.
	Clause 4 [Applications for orders under Section 2]:
	[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
	Clause 4 agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 26:
	Before Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
	"AUTOMATIC EXEMPTIONS FROM CURRICULUM AND PAY AND CONDITIONS PROVISIONS
	(1) Regulations shall designate curriculum or pay or conditions provisions as attracting exemptions for all maintained schools, subject to subsection (2).
	(2) Regulations may prescribe circumstances in which a school or category of schools will not benefit from automatic exemption under subsection (1), in which case section 6 shall apply.
	(3) The regulations in subsections (1) and (2) shall be subject to affirmative resolution."

Baroness Blatch: In moving Amendment No. 26, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 32.
	The amendment would allow for exemption from curriculum and pay and conditions provisions for all schools, subject to regulations made by the Secretary of State that would circumscribe the schools or categories of school that would not benefit from that freedom. Any regulations that came before the House would do so under the affirmative resolution procedures.
	The regulations referred to in subsection (1) would set the framework within which freedom would be allowed—for example, in schools in which a broad and balanced curriculum was to be retained or for named subjects that would not be available for exemption, depending on the view of the Secretary of State, and aspects of pay and conditions provisions that were not for relaxation, modification or alteration.
	The amendment would, in a more limited field, advance the proposal that schools should be free to manage themselves, unless there is a concern about them. The amendment is not seeking full exemption from all curriculum provisions, although the best-performing schools should be given more freedom, a point made earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford. The very best schools, which come through inspections with flying colours, would like more freedom and more relaxation of national curriculum requirements.
	Nor does the amendment seek full derogation from all pay and conditions provisions. It would build on Clause 6, which we will discuss later, by allowing the Secretary of State to propose exemption from some curriculum or pay and conditions rules that apply to all schools.
	Secondly, it allows the Secretary of State to publish open and objective criteria such as, for example, defining a "failing school" under which schools or categories of school should not qualify for exemption. Perhaps I may give an unlikely example. The department might say that all schools should be exempt from the need to teach the maths curriculum as regards algebra, but that the schools specialising in maths would not be exempt.
	It would be for the Secretary of State to determine what did and did not qualify for exemption. The circumstances should be objective, published and automatic. The discretionary powers being sought by the Government in Section 6 would apply only if a school or category of school fell foul of the objective criteria which would have been set out.
	It does not remove the discretionary power of the department under Clause 6, but it writes into law an assumption that exemptions would confer general freedom in all cases, limited only by objective criteria that had been published and well understood. Clause 6 would still give the Government power to waive the limitations, even in the case of a school or schools which were within the category described as not exempt. However, on first reading, the procedure under Clause 6 seems excessively, almost perversely, complex. Again, that will be the subject of later amendments.
	The amendment would introduce simpler, clearer and more open procedures which would be to the benefit of innovation and would at the same time drastically reduce the bureaucracy inherent in the Government's proposals. I have deliberately referred to what the amendment does not do. Therefore, I hope that in response the Minister will refrain from any arguments that might have been put forward by officials as regards what my amendment is meant to achieve.
	It was important to say what the amendment does not do because I know that people become worried. We are keen to give the Secretary of State the powers to circumscribe the use of the power so that all the area which the Secretary of State deems not to be made available for exemption will be determined by Parliament under the affirmative resolution procedure. I beg to move.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: While we on these Benches support the notion of bringing the criteria out into the open, in general we are not supportive of the whole concept of earned autonomy. We believe that it goes much too far in the direction of giving successful schools the right to innovate, whereas that right needs to be broader.
	We are unhappy at the degree to which already the specialist schools' programme tends to put powers and, above all, money into the hands of the successful schools. We see this measure as yet another aspect of encouragement; making it easier for successful schools but leaving the average schools in a more difficult position. We have reservations about the general issue of earned autonomy. If this is the way in which the Government want to go, we would like to see all provisions brought out into the open.

Lord Dearing: I intervene to support the reservations expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. Perhaps I may discuss Clause 6 in this context. We are saying, "We will reward you successful schools by removing the national curriculum requirement from you". I argue that there is no need to remove the national curriculum requirements from successful schools because they are succeeding. Why intervene? Why change things? We have a success.
	The place where greater freedom is most needed is in those schools which are not succeeding. Perhaps the head teacher, with the support of the local authority, has some good ideas to respond to the particular needs of the children in his or her school which will require greater flexibility in the curriculum. I do not want to speculate on particular conditions, but let us suppose, say, that the school was one of ethnic minority. A motivation might then be enhanced if the school had a greater opportunity to respond to the culture of those children. I tend to believe that the proposal is perverse.
	Secondly, to the extent that successful schools can depart from the curriculum, to the extent that they are successful and can change the terms and conditions and change pay, there is an even greater risk that the best teachers will be attracted to those successful schools and away from the schools which most need the best teachers.
	I ask the Government to think carefully about whether the national curriculum is unfit for the best schools and fit only for the less successful schools and whether it is the case that the national curriculum has served us well over the years and that we should remove it only where we are clear that to do so is necessary to enhance the performance of the children in a school.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I thought it might be helpful to Members of the Committee if I commented on the purpose behind the concept of earned autonomy, particularly in the light of the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. We have a school system which is accountable and one in which we can monitor individual school performance. We have described that as allowing us to intervene in inverse proportion to success.
	Within that framework, we want to entrust our most successful and well-led schools with additional freedoms and flexibilities so that they have more control over the way in which they are run. These greater freedoms and flexibilities will relate to certain areas of the national curriculum and teachers' pay and conditions. However, I would make it clear to Members of the Committee that performance targets, accountability, including Ofsted inspection, and effective teacher performance management arrangements will remain in place. Schools will also be required to teach the basics and offer a broad and balanced curriculum.
	The clauses are intended to ensure that within certain parameters this greater freedom will build on the professionalism that we know exists within the school workforce and help us to consider what further flexibilities may benefit the system as a whole.
	I say to the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, that it is important to recognise that that is a different concept from that of the power to innovate, which is by its nature an opportunity for any school to come forward. This measure is about giving autonomy which is permanent and which will be as far as is possible automatic. Therefore, it is important to differentiate the two.
	I now turn to specific amendments. It is particularly true for the provisions under earned autonomy, where they will apply by right, that we look at our successful schools. We have identified the areas of the curriculum and teachers' pay and conditions as being those where the freedoms could apply. Given the nature of those freedoms, we want to be particularly clear that they are given to schools in the best possible position to make use of them in the interests of their pupils.
	We also believe that the prospect of earning greater autonomy could be a helpful incentive for improvement. However, at this stage we of course want to proceed with caution. I believe that given the nature of the flexibilities we should look to schools which have good leadership and management and achieve a satisfactory standard for qualification for the earned autonomy.
	We have said that we intend to consult fully on the detailed criteria. We intend to make them challenging to provide schools with incentives and to ensure that the flexibilities are used wisely. Over time, the proportion of eligible schools will grow as systems improve.
	We believe that that is the right approach, complementing the innovation provisions under Chapter 1 of the Bill. We see the schools which earn autonomy as developing ideas so that over time all schools benefit from the success of the policy. None the less, I say to the noble Baroness that in the light of the debate I am prepared to look further at the detail of the criteria and to consider whether detailed adjustments might be made so that more schools are eligible.
	I turn to Amendments Nos. 26 and 32. They also propose that regulations relating to the curriculum or pay and conditions flexibilities and the circumstances in which schools would not benefit must be debated in both Houses. With respect, I would remind the Committee that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee was content with our approach. Given that we intend to undertake a full consultation, noble Lords will understand that we do not believe that it is necessary to add additional layers to the process, which the amendment would require, and thus possibly use parliamentary time less wisely.
	I hope that, in the light of those comments and my earlier commitment, the noble Baroness will recognise that we envisage a system that will provide incentives to achieve success and will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the way in which she has responded to the amendment. Certainly I accept with much gratitude the fact that the noble Baroness will look again at the criteria.
	I had understood that the target originally set by the Government was to be only 10 per cent of all schools. That is a little disturbing because it presupposes that 90 per cent of our schools are in some way unable to qualify. I cannot think of anything that would disqualify, say, the 20, 30 or 40 per cent below the top decile. We have some high-performing schools in the upper quartile of all schools. The notion that the criteria would disqualify 90 per cent of schools and allow through only 10 per cent strikes me as an extremely cautious approach.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, has expressed considerable reservations. To an extent, I understand his words about the national curriculum. In the face of a great deal of opposition, I have always defended the introduction of the national curriculum. I can recall the pre-national curriculum days when some schools were allowing children to leave at 16 years old without ever having studied a science subject. Indeed, in some schools there were children who had never learnt maths and English. Some quite horrifying stories were told at the time. For those reasons, I always thought that the introduction of the national curriculum was right.
	However, I would be the first to say that the initial introduction of the national curriculum caused enormous tensions within schools. It was highly prescriptive and it stifled innovation and professional flexibility. I believe that there are a number of schools, mostly the more successful ones, which feel inhibited or even held back by the requirements of the national curriculum. Therefore there is scope for allowing the highest performing schools, those that continue to pass through the inspection system with flying colours, a little more freedom. We ought to be able to trust such schools to deliver the kind of education that not only benefits the pupils in their care but which would not go down the road of becoming irresponsible. I understand the noble Lord's thinking on this issue.
	However, in response to his point that if successful schools were given such autonomy they would then act as a magnet for the most successful teachers, I have to say that in the real world those schools are already a magnet for the best teachers. The most ambitious and able teachers gravitate towards the schools that give them the greatest professional flexibility and freedom. I am not sure that that is an effective argument against the proposal.
	I am glad that the Government will look again at the criteria, although there is some tension in their words. On the one hand they talk about setting criteria that would allow through a certain number of schools, but on the other they refer to an automatic qualification. However, once the criteria have been set then, as I understand it, any school which meets those criteria under an automatic system would automatically qualify for the freedoms set out in the clause. If that is the case, introducing targets would not be appropriate because the number of schools that would qualify would be the number that qualified—because they met the criteria. However, that is a detail.
	I await the Government's further thinking on this matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 5 [Interpretation of Chapter 2]:

Lord Peston: moved Amendment No. 27:
	Page 4, line 6, leave out "performance" and insert "educational performance including its efficiency"

Lord Peston: Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 are technical and have been tabled to seek clarification. The Bill uses the word "performance". The first amendment seeks to find out what the Government mean by that. I suggest the alternative of,
	"educational performance including its efficiency".
	The first part is obvious. Is the Bill about educational performance rather than any other performance? The second part on efficiency has been included because I understand that if a school performs well, it will get certain benefits. The test of performance is very important and I am sure that almost everyone in the field now uses the expression "value added", an expression that is almost vulgar but one which is central to economics. That concept is the one that matters in this area.
	A school that is highly selective, with many good kids, and does well with them is unimpressive, but a school that is not selective, with many difficult children, and does well is fantastically successful. To that end, I want to ask my noble friend on the Front Bench precisely what the Government have in mind in this whole area.
	Whatever may be our view of this part of the Bill in general, it is important to ensure that the criteria to be are applied are not biased in what would be an absurd direction; in other words, whatever else we are talking about, we are certainly talking about offering incentives to do well educationally with the children in place in any school. The measure required for that is to ascertain what a school adds to the education of those children. Let me add that my concept of educational performance includes life enhancement as an important aspect. That, in summary, sets out my first question to my noble friend.
	The second question I wish to put concerns the word "leadership", because there is much more to a school than simply leadership. I have always thought of a school, as I have always thought of a department in a university, as a co-operative enterprise. The people are all in it together. The way to judge the enterprise is not to refer to the great star of a particular department but rather to what do those people do as a joint group of teachers? I wonder whether the Government share that view. Within that, what matters is not only leadership but management more generally. Does my noble friend agree with that?
	I wish to raise one other matter, although I am sorry to have to do so at this late hour. I am sure that my noble friend is aware that education is another area which is immensely biased against women. The number of women in senior posts is disproportionately low compared with the number of women who come into education as teachers. Far fewer women than men are promoted to senior positions. I wonder whether people in education wriggle away from this by referring to "leadership" rather than something else. They may say, "Women are not natural leaders. We can see that around your Lordships' House all the time". As someone who has been a great campaigner for the equality of women, I am a little worried about it. We need to find a form of words that will not carry on that bias against women.
	Lastly, I raise a minor technical point. I am a little worried about the whole of this proposal in connection with a rather obvious question. Let us assume that a school has been given a special status as a result of a particular "leader", as stated in the Bill. What will happen if that excellent leader leaves the school? If the quality of the school depends entirely on its leadership, will it then lose its status? The idea is ridiculous, but that seems to be what it says in the Bill.
	I have put these matters forward through two technical amendments. No doubt my noble friend has easy answers, but at this point I seek elucidation and information. I beg to move.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has explained that what he meant by the term "efficiency" was in fact "value added". I have to say that in this age of managerialism, the word "efficiency" is too frequently interpreted as cost effectiveness, so I was rather horrified by the use of the term. I entirely endorse his view that we should regard this as a matter of value added and I am only sorry that he did not propose the term in his amendment.
	For rather the same reason, I wonder about his use of the word "management" as well as the word "leadership". I believe that one element that stands out in our education system is how important is the quality of leadership in a head teacher. To that end, the courses that have been introduced recently to train head teachers in leadership are important innovations. We have not done enough in this area so far.
	I understand what the noble Lord means by his use of the words "management" and "leadership", but, as he knows full well, I believe that we may be in danger of introducing the concept of managerialism, of which we have far too much already in the education system.
	It is very obvious that in the education system as a whole women are not properly represented in the higher ranks. However, this House demonstrates that women are the workers of the world.

Baroness Blatch: We are not doing too badly this evening. I have done a head count around the Chamber. Not only are we holding our own in terms of numbers; we are holding our own as effective operators.
	I support the introduction of the word "management", but probably for different reasons. This strikes me as an issue where you can have leadership. Leadership is about motivating people and getting the best out of them, but the management of an establishment is also important. If the Government are considering giving freedom to a school, they will expect it to be well run—that means well managed; they would also expect leadership.
	I support the amendment in regard to adding the word "educational". "Performance" can mean many things to many people, but we are talking about education—the primary concern so far as concerns the Bill—and about giving schools their freedom to provide effective education, and there is a distinction to be made between good performance and good educational delivery. So we support the amendments which seek to add those two words to the clause.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Again, another new idea has been introduced to the Committee. I, too, have carried out a head count of the women. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that they are extremely effective. I shall of course pass on that view to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, who also fits into the category. This is a serious point. I am not quite sure how to respond to it in the context of the amendment, except to say that it is important that we ensure that able women can achieve in, and be at the top of, our education system.
	As regards Amendment No. 27, in proposing performance criteria for earned autonomy we are absolutely clear that performance relates to "educational performance". We believe that the performance criteria, on which we propose to consult, involves looking at a school's performance within the relevant free school meal band for precisely this reason.
	We want to ensure that schools facing a variety of circumstances are eligible for earned autonomy. Included in this is our intention that schools in the most challenging circumstances are able to qualify for, and obtain, earned autonomy. As the noble Lord has requested, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has said, over time, as value-added measures are introduced, we are committed to considering how that data can be incorporated into the performance criteria.
	Our proposals in this respect are set out in the earned autonomy policy document provided in another place and available from the House Library. However, I would draw the Committee's attention to point 8 of that guidance, where we describe how we would remove flexibilities and freedoms. We recognise that school performances can be variable and we would wish to see flexibilities removed only if performance fell significantly or over a protracted period of time and where the use by the school of the increased flexibilities might be a contributing factor. We have expressed this by saying that if a school's performance either falls significantly below the top 25 per cent mark in its free school meal band for three years running, or falls below the median performance level in that free school meal band in any one year, or is judged by Ofsted to fall below "excellent" or "very good" in two of the three aspects above. I hope that that is helpful.
	As to Amendment No. 28, we intend that the school's management should be included in the criteria. It is an intention that we have already set out in the policy statement I referred to earlier. We intend that the detailed content of the criteria should be set in regulations rather than in primary legislation. That will allow us as the policy develops to develop the criteria, broadening the availability of earned autonomy to yet more well led, high-performing schools.
	However, the noble Lord has made a point that we should consider further. We have distinguished elsewhere in the Bill—for example, in Schedule 16 which makes minor amendments to the School Inspections Act—between "leadership" and "management". It has always been our intention that the two areas of leadership and management should be used together in making judgments in this area, and my noble friend is right to point out that there is at least some doubt as to whether the primary legislation enables us to do so. I can reassure him that I shall consider the point further with a view to bringing forward an amendment at Report stage, if necessary, to ensure that judgment about management can be included in the criteria. With this assurance, I trust that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.

Lord Peston: I thank my noble friend for her encouraging reply. Perhaps I may make one last point which I forgot to make earlier. I hope that we recognise that although we are talking about schools, a school is already a quite large body. In the days when I visited schools, one of the things that made me feel optimistic about the world was that, even in a bad school, teachers were performing miracles in adverse circumstances. I know my noble friend will agree that although we are trying to improve a school within a school, we must recognise always that there will be people there who are doing remarkable work. We must not undermine that remarkable work even though, overall, the school itself needs to improve. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 29:
	Page 4, line 7, at end insert "and shall include criteria requiring the school to demonstrate how any exemption will be evaluated in terms of its impact on disabled pupils and pupils with special educational needs"

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: In moving Amendment No 29, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 30 and 43. This group of amendments again concerns special educational needs. The arrangements in this chapter of the Bill are all about successful schools. It is the demonstrated success of a school that will qualify it for exemption from or modification of statutory powers.
	The Special Education Consortium—I speak on its behalf—is very concerned that three key criteria should be met to ensure that the arrangements for earned autonomy take adequate account of the education of disabled children and children with special educational needs. Three particular aspects about which we are concerned are represented by the three amendments.
	First, schools which are deemed to be successful should be able to demonstrate that they have been successful in promoting the education of disabled children and children with educational needs. Traditional measures of success depend heavily on test and examination performance. Such outcomes may not adequately reflect a school's work with disabled children and children with special educational needs. In fact, it is possible for a school to be performing well on test and examination outcomes but to be neglecting the progress of disabled children and children with SEN. By contrast, it is likely that a school which is promoting the achievement of disabled children and children with SEN is promoting also the achievement of all the other children in the school. So it is crucial for schools seeking earned autonomy to be able to demonstrate satisfactorily their ability to provide, and to provide well, for disabled children and children with special educational needs. That is why we are pressing Amendment No. 29.
	We are concerned, secondly, that there should be a requirement to show how the impact of any exemption or any innovation will be evaluated from the point of view of its impact on disabled pupils and pupils with SEN. Again, it would be possible for the exemptions or modifications earned by a school further to disadvantage disabled children and children with SEN. There might, for example, be a narrowing of the curriculum or a reliance on classroom assistants to provide teaching for children with SEN, with teachers acting in a more consultative mode. Interaction with a teacher lies at the heart of the learning process, and other staff may not be adequately trained to spot the clues to a child's progress and to exploit them to the benefit of the child. That explains why we are putting forward the second amendment.
	The third amendment, Amendment No. 43, is concerned with the ability of successful schools to demonstrate that they have significant support from parents and the community, and in particular from parents with disabled children and children with special educational needs.
	There are provisions for the governing body to consult with parents before an application is submitted under this chapter of the Bill. It is important that consultation specifically seeks out the views of parents of disabled children and children with SEN. Any modification or exemption may affect such children disproportionately. The views of this group of parents should be made clear in the application. I look forward to the Minister's response to our reasons for putting forward the three amendments. I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch: The noble Baroness has spoken to Amendment No. 43. I believe that she misinterpreted it anyway, but she referred to it as one of three Liberal Democrat amendments. Amendment No. 43 stands in my name, so I am not sure whether she was referring to a different amendment.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I beg the noble Baroness's pardon. I see that our amendments are Amendments Nos. 29 and 30.

Baroness Blatch: All these amendments refer to the protection of children with special needs, but Amendment No. 43 in my name—and I shall speak also to Amendment No. 39—seeks to ensure that,
	"No regulations . . . shall limit or reduce the provision of special educational needs in any qualifying school".
	I return to the fact that there is universal concern about this issue. I was contacted only today by the NUT, which makes some interesting points on Amendment No. 39. In its briefing, it refers to the fact that the Bill contains no guarantee of the protection of such children. We have made that point ad nauseam during the course of the debate. The NUT goes on to say:
	"The Government has stated its intention that 'every school must continue to teach the basics and offer a broad and balanced curriculum'".
	There is a tension here. The Bill allows for an exemption from those requirements. So it would be helpful to know exactly what the Government will regard as a no-go area for the purposes of asking for exemptions. The NUT briefing continues:
	"It is not clear what is meant by 'a broad and balanced curriculum'".
	At some point in the debate we shall need a definition from the Government as to what they believe is a "broad and balanced curriculum".
	The Green Paper and the White Paper emphasise the importance of sports, the arts, drama and music, but again there is little or no reference to history or geography. I know that outside this Chamber there is considerable concern, for example, that the term "humanities" will not necessarily include history and/or geography. In addition, the Green Paper and the White Paper imply that sports, the arts, drama and musical activities are increasingly seen as extra-curricular; therefore, not all pupils will have the same opportunities for access.
	I return to my earlier suggestion. It is becoming clearer and clearer to me that all the different amendments that we have tabled in order to provide protection for children with special educational needs may not be the best way to go about this. I implore the noble Baroness to give some consideration between now and the next stage of the Bill to a portmanteau statement at the outset of the Bill, in or before Clause 1, setting in statute protection for the interests and needs of such children if any SEN legislation being applied for in terms of exemption fell foul of that basic, fundamental protection. That provision could be included in a single amendment and would be hugely helpful.
	For that reason, I shall not press my Amendments Nos. 39 and 43. There is still some debate to be had about the matter and there may be a meeting of minds on finding a better way of building in protection for children with special educational needs.

Lord Rix: I am inclined to agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on her last statement. It would be splendid if there was a catch-all clause at the beginning of the Bill to encompass all people with special educational needs and disability. The references could then be few and far between in the rest of the Bill, because the issue would be covered in statute for all time.
	Once more, I wish to play my one-string fiddle with regard to the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford. When schools apply to become qualifying schools, it is important that they show better than average effective special educational needs practices rather than being allowed to exclude such children. I would welcome an assurance from the Minister that pupils with special educational needs and disabled children will not end up consigned to non-qualifying, less favoured schools. I therefore support the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, in her amendments and hope that the Minister will look on them favourably.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I fully support the sentiments that lie behind the amendments—a wish to see the interests of disabled children or those with special educational needs at the heart of decisions relating to earned autonomy. However, it will not surprise noble Lords to hear that I do not believe that these amendments offer the best way to achieve that aim. I fear that Amendment No. 29 would add to the bureaucracy of the application process and discourage schools from coming forward with ideas that would benefit all children, including those it is intended to protect. For example, schools applying for earned autonomy would not know if they were eligible until after they had applied and it had been determined whether the evaluation plan was acceptable. Before a school embarks on a consultation programme on the flexibilities that it is seeking, it is not unreasonable for it to expect to know whether it would qualify.
	We have made clear our intention to make as many flexibilities as possible automatic. This is based on a belief that we can and should trust our best schools to take decisions that are right for their pupils. That includes those with special educational needs. It is also based on an understanding that schools need to be allowed to get on with the job of educating our children without a continual need to justify and defend their decisions through reports and applications.
	There are already safeguards to protect the interests of children with special educational needs, including the inspection regime. Our commitment to the publication of value-added measures will provide yet another means of holding schools accountable for the progress of all children. Furthermore, the policy statement on earned autonomy has made clear our intention to consult on the use of value-added data in determining eligibility for earned autonomy once sufficient information is available. While I would be happy to continue to explore other ways of meeting the concerns of the noble Baroness, I do not believe this is the right approach.
	The same applies to Amendment No. 30. If there was a clear and unambiguous measure of attainment for these children that could be applied in appropriate cases, I would be happy to accept an amendment of this kind. Unfortunately, as noble Lords will be only too well aware, this is not the case. It is notoriously difficult to develop a simple measure of attainment for children whose educational needs are so varied and where there are huge differences from school to school in the nature of their special needs and their special needs provision.
	The amendment would require us to specify such a measure in regulations. There is a real danger that that measure would turn out to be unfair, denying schools earned autonomy because of a measure that was inappropriate to the nature of the special needs that they catered for.
	The amendment would also deny earned autonomy to any school without pupils with disabilities—although I am sure that that is not intentional. It is impossible to demonstrate high standards of achievement of children with disabilities if there are none at the school in question.
	While I am more than willing to continue to explore with noble Lords other ways of meeting their concerns, I return to the general proposition of earned autonomy, which is about trusting our best schools and our best head teachers to take decisions that are in the best interests of their children, including those children with disabilities or with special educational needs.
	In relation to Amendments Nos. 39 and 43, I remind the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that Clause 7 makes it clear that the governing body must consult the parents of pupils at the school where that governing body is applying for earned autonomy in respect of any curriculum provision. Parents can voice their views and concerns through parent representatives on the governing body and through the explicit requirements of Clause 7. Where parents of pupils with special educational needs are opposed to the change being proposed, they will make their views known. The governing body will consider those views, and I do not believe that the governing body of a successful school would disregard them.
	We have also made it clear that the accountability framework will remain. Performance tables will remain in place and Ofsted will continue to inspect schools and will continue to be concerned with the education that the school provides for all its children, including those with special needs.
	Finally, I stress that earned autonomy cannot change the duties of the local education authority or the governing body to secure that appropriate special educational provision for pupils with special educational needs is made. Therefore, qualifying schools will have to take that into account during their consultations and subsequently when making an application to the Secretary of State or the National Assembly.
	As I have said, I would welcome discussions with noble Lords. I am very interested in the possible way forward described by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I should like to consider that and other issues before the next stage of the Bill. I would genuinely welcome discussions on how to take the issue forward. It is quite difficult, but there is no lack of will from the Government. With those reassurances, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for that reply. I also apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I was looking at my briefing on Amendment No. 46, which comes later and also deals with page 5 of the Bill. I therefore jumped to the conclusion that one of her amendments must be mine.
	We recognise that, as the Minister said, it is inevitably difficult to find the right phrasing in these matters. What is most encouraging is the notion that we might be able to establish a type of portmanteau coverage to address special educational needs issues. Those issues arise throughout the Bill, and we shall be moving a series of amendments to address them. Nevertheless, it would be very satisfactory to cover the issues at the beginning of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]

Lord Davies of Oldham: moved Amendment No. 31:
	Page 4, line 10, at end insert—
	"(2A) For the purposes of this Chapter a school teacher is "employed" at a school if he works at the school under a contract falling within paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of section 118(3)."

Lord Davies of Oldham: In moving Amendment No. 31, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 154, 158 and 368. These are technical amendments providing for internal consistency within the Bill.
	Amendment No. 31, which amends Clause 5, adds a definition that ensures the provisions allowing certain schools to apply for exemption from parts of the pay and conditions document apply to exactly the same group of people as the document. The other three amendments remove a list of related definitions from Chapter 1 of Part 3 of the Bill. The definitions were imported from the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 and are not needed for this chapter as the meaning of the terms is clear where used. Amendment No. 368 takes the definition of a contract of employment which was located in this chapter and places it in Clause 205 in order to refer to the whole Bill.
	These are technical improvements to the Bill's drafting which will ensure consistency in the interpretation of the Bill as a whole. I beg to move.

Lord Lucas: I should be grateful for a little help from the Minister. It is not clear that the definitions in Clause 118(3)(b) and Clause 129(1) would apply to a head teacher or member of senior management who was not actually teaching. I am also not clear whether the ambit of the definitions is intended to cover supply teachers, who do not seem to be covered by Clause 118(3)(c). I hope that he can enlighten me on the point.

Lord Davies of Oldham: These are technical amendments which improve the Bill's internal consistency. The noble Lord is asking me about their extent and range. I cannot deal with the precise points now, but I shall write to him on them. We shall also have an opportunity to return to these technical provisions and improve them if necessary.

Baroness Blatch: I am sorry to be pernickety on the point, but I have been in the position that the Minister now finds himself in: one moves a string of technical amendments, bites one's lip, and just hopes that everyone says okay and does not ask a question. However, it is especially important that questions on technical amendments be answered. Although I am not accusing the Minister of this, Ministers sometimes use the ploy of avoiding noble Lords' questions and worries by referring to the technical nature of amendments. My noble friend Lord Lucas has asked a question and I think it deserves an answer. The Minister is asking the Committee to approve the amendments. However, as it will not delay our consideration of the Bill, I think that we should leave the amendments to Report stage, after the question has been answered.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for eating up those two crucial minutes so that help could arrive, and getting me round that rather sticky corner. I am grateful for her approach, and she is absolutely right—technical amendments always do raise real issues. As she will recognise, however, we are simply seeking to make the Bill as clear and consistent as possible. Moreover, as she so rightly said, it is often difficult to answer questions on technical amendments.
	The points that the noble Lord made do not affect the amendments. The amendments ensure that certain definitions here are consistent with those in Clause 118. I believe that the noble Lord will conclude that we have produced clearer definitions. That is why these amendments were tabled.

Lord Lucas: I entirely agree that the wording and the construction are more elegant. However, my understanding of the amendments that the noble Lord introduces is that in this section of the Bill the parts which are to apply to teachers employed at a school enabling the pay and conditions regulations to be relaxed in relation to those teachers will not now apply to head teachers and members of the senior management who do not teach. I should be grateful for confirmation that that is what is intended as that is certainly the effect of the amendments as I read them. It is also the effect of the amendments as I read them that they would not apply to supply teachers. I suspect that that may be right, but I should again be grateful for confirmation that that is what is intended.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I confirm that that is what is intended. The crucial clause is Clause 118 which concerns the power to prescribe pay and conditions. As the noble Lord rightly indicated, supply teachers are under specific contracts. Therefore, the amendment does not apply to supply teachers. The measure applies to non-teaching heads. Subsection (4) of Clause 118 states:
	"A person is also a school teacher for the purposes of this section if he serves as the head teacher of a school maintained by a local education authority".

Lord Lucas: The amendment that we are looking at does not refer to subsection (4) of Clause 118; it refers only to paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of Clause 118(3), which do not include a head teacher who is not a teacher.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The noble Lord will recognise that what we are trying to achieve throughout the Bill is consistency of definitions. We recognise the distinction with regard to supply teachers. I believe that he will accept that the amendment adds to the clarity of the Bill as a whole. If there are outstanding difficulties, I undertake to return to them on Report. However, at this point I cannot see that there is any difficulty in accepting Amendment No. 31.

Lord Lucas: In part I have been motivated in all this by the torrid times given to me by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, over many years on similar groups of amendments when I was a junior Whip on the Front Bench. However, I believe that we have an unresolved point here. I should be grateful for a letter before Report in time to table amendments if that is required.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I give that assurance.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
	Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 6 [Exemptions available to qualifying schools]:

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 33:
	Page 4, line 25, leave out "may" and insert "shall"

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: In moving Amendment No. 33, I wish also to speak to the Question that Clause 6 stand part of the Bill. These two issues are related. Clause 6(1) states:
	"Regulations may for the purposes of this section—".
	It then sets out some detailed provisions.
	The amendment was suggested by the National Association of Head Teachers. Its view is that it has got to have regulations in order to make any applications under the earned autonomy provision. It is impossible for it not to have details of what is needed. What is a successful school, and why cannot schools other than those with a serious weakness be allowed to practise self-management?
	The detail of the provisions brings me to the clause stand part debate. I made it clear in my initial remarks on earned autonomy that I am less than convinced that that is a good idea. Many issues arise in that regard. Why should schools have to apply to the Secretary of State for permission to exercise earned autonomy? The Minister said that, given the criteria, schools will not know when they apply whether they will be eligible for earned autonomy and that the whole issue will have to be evaluated by the Department for Education and Skills.
	We return to the debate that we had at the start of our proceedings on the centralisation of these issues, the degree to which the arrangement is concentrated on the ministry and the degree of micro-management that is entailed. The process seems incredibly bureaucratic and over-prescriptive and it will place a great deal of power in the hands of the Secretary of State.
	When we debated Amendment No. 15, I suggested that the one area in which schools wanted a bit of flexibility was in relation to the curriculum, but the Minister replied, "They do not need that because they already have plenty of flexibility in relation to the curriculum". Why are we now proposing that, with regard to earned autonomy, we should give them flexibility in relation to the curriculum? That is a nonsense. I therefore question whether the clause should stand part of the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Peston: I have a question about our procedure. We will come to subsequent amendments that relate to Clause 6. How can we possibly be debating clause stand part before our consideration of those amendments? Surely, someone or other—I hate to look at the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp—must be out of order. We cannot possibly debate clause stand part before considering amendments that require the clause to still be in the Bill when we debate them.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The answer is that we can debate clause stand part but that we cannot resolve it until all of the amendments to the clause have been debated. It is perfectly proper to debate clause stand part if the proposer of the earlier amendment wishes to do so.

Lord Peston: I entirely take my noble friend's point, but it seems to be slightly illogical to be debating something without an ability to resolve it. It makes much more logical sense to debate the amendments and then to have the clause stand part debate. But at this time of night it is obviously all getting a bit beyond me.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: The reason why I discussed whether the clause stand part was because it is grouped with the amendment on the groupings list. I did a certain amount of regrouping yesterday but, unlike the noble Lord, I did not regroup my amendments to the extent that every one of them would be debated separately.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: I have much sympathy with Amendment No. 33, which involves the rest of the clause. However, it is very strange that regulations "may" provide—

Lord Skelmersdale: I regret that we have got somewhat out of order, notwithstanding the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. We should return to the amendment.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: The noble Baroness has spoken to the amendment, as has the noble Lord, Lord Peston; I am simply continuing our debate on it. However, what I wish to say involves the clause stand part debate, which is grouped with the amendment.
	It is very strange that Clause 6(1) states that:
	"Regulations may for the purposes of this section",
	designate various provisions, which are listed in paragraphs (a) to (d). They are substantial paragraphs. Paragraphs (a) and (b) speak of designating "any curriculum provision", and paragraphs (c) and (d) refer to modifications of "any curriculum provision".
	What is meant by those designations? In practical terms, how far will the regulations go in designating parts of the curriculum from which schools may be exempt? Are the core national curriculum and its subjects sacrosanct, or could they come under any of these regulations as providing exemption? This point was raised earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, and by my noble friend Lady Blatch. It is time that we had some clarification of precisely what is meant by "any curriculum provision" and the exemption that may be provided through regulation on that account.

Lord Lucas: My interest in opposing the Question that Clause 6 stand part is based merely on wishing to find out what Clause 6 is intended to do.

Baroness Blatch: I am sympathetic to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. It does seem bizarre to discuss whether the clause shall stand part when there are two pages of amendments yet to come in relation to the clause. I believe that that is probably a fault of the groupings. It is always possible, although highly unlikely, that the Minister will accept all the amendments between now and Amendment No. 43, although I believe that she has already indicated that Amendment No. 43 is not acceptable. We may have a very different Clause 6 in the Bill when we come to agreeing whether it will stand part; or we may know far more about it by the time we reach that point. Therefore, I believe that the amendments are important in finding out what the clause is about and having that on the record. We can then debate whether or not we believe that it should stand part of the Bill. With that, I agree.
	However, there is a supreme irony here. In speeches over recent days we have heard Ministers use the language of devolution. That is particularly the case in the health service but less so in the education service, although I have heard it from the Secretary of State for Education. They have spoken of passing more control for public services to local level, with more devolution of management and more ownership at local level. They have spoken of letting go of the reins and of Whitehall agreeing to relinquish its central control.
	But this Bill is very centralist. Now, almost everything that happens and almost everything that moves in schools must be approved by the Secretary of State. I believe that that flies in the face of, and is very inconsistent with, much of what is being said. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to persuade her colleagues to say that schools can be trusted. As I said during debate on earlier amendments, schools are highly accountable. They operate in a goldfish bowl; they cannot get away with delivering a poor service without it being noticed and without it being dealt with by some part of legislation.
	Therefore, the situation is the reverse of what Ministers are saying. The reality is that the central control is tightening all the time. I hope that we in this House can do something about loosening that control before the Bill goes back to another place.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: On my first day of my first Committee stage, I confess to being slightly lost so far as concerns the procedure. I do not know whether I should talk about clause stand part now or later. I shall do my best to respond in various ways to the relevant issues that have been raised, and I hope that I shall have addressed them all by the time we reach the end of our discussions on these amendments.
	As I said, earned autonomy is about trusting schools to exercise additional freedoms and flexibilities in the interests of the schools. We want the process to be as simple and un-bureaucatic as possible, with—I say this to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch—minimal involvement from the Secretary of State. However, while we wish as many flexibilities as possible to be made available as of right, we believe that we need to retain the ability to decide whether or not it will be appropriate for regulations to include both automatic and discretionary areas of exemption.
	Such decisions will be subject to full consultation. Until we are clear, following consultation, what areas will be covered by regulation, it is important that we retain flexibility. That is precisely why it is appropriate to leave the word "may" in the first line of Clause 6 rather than to replace it by "shall". If the word "shall" were included we would be required to make available some automatic exemptions and some discretionary ones, in both teachers' pay and conditions and in the national curriculum. The word "may" would enable us to make exemptions automatic as far as possible, with no discretionary element.
	We have set out in detail our proposals for doing this in a policy statement sent to the committee in another place and that is available in the Library of the House. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
	Before I move on I would like to refer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, which is subjects. I am very pleased that he raised it because, as Members of the Committee will be aware, we have been doing a great deal of work on the Green Paper on the education of 14 to 19-year olds and the flexibility that we are very keen to see in Key Stage 4 of the national curriculum. We have had a chance to reflect on the stance of earned autonomy that we outlined in another place.
	It is our view that non-core foundation subjects need to be protected under earned autonomy. That means that no school will be able to suspend any subject, but will be given flexibility in relation to the programmes of study for non-core subjects, allowing far more freedom in teaching and greater scope in curriculum planning. I hope that that is helpful to the noble Lord.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: Does what the Minister has just said in relation to the foundation subjects, or the non-core subjects to which the noble Baroness referred, mean that the core subjects are sacrosanct?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: It does.

Baroness Blatch: I wish to press the noble Baroness on that point. In a Written Answer to me the word "general" is used. It states that in specific cases where the matter could qualify for autonomy, both under innovation and earned autonomy, it was possible for an application to be approved.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: As I have tried to indicate, we have been looking at what is the best and most appropriate way of taking forward earned autonomy within our school system. It is our view that because we have been looking at the strategy for 14 to 19 year-olds that we are very keen to ensure that the flexibility around that group is at the heart of what we are trying to do with flexibility. Then we shall look back at the implications involved in terms of Key Stages 1 and 3.
	We are aiming to make sure that within our school system a child moving from one school to another or entering the system is aware of the subjects in which it is entitled to be taught and which are available. Beyond that we want to ensure that schools have freedom to be able to explore different and innovative ways, through earned autonomy, of being able to teach those subjects. That is what we are seeking to do within that framework. I hope that clarifies the point for the noble Baroness. If it does not, I shall either write to her or state the issue in a different way.

Baroness Blatch: I have now found the reply, which is to a Written Question (HL 3784). It states,
	"The Government have made clear their view that they would not in general regard a proposal to suspend the requirement to teach a compulsory subject as standard-raising unless"-
	in other words, there is a caveat—
	"appropriate arrangements are in place to secure high standards in the basics and a broad and balanced curriculum. It follows that only in such circumstances would my right honourable friend the Secretary of State have the power to grant the order". [Official Report, 30/04/02; col. WA93.]
	That is, grant the order to exempt a compulsory subject from being taught. Therefore, the status of the compulsory subject is affected by both Clause 2 and Clause 5.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I, too, have a copy of the letter that I wrote to the noble Baroness in front of me. It refers to Clause 1, which deals with the power to innovate. I am sorry, but the letter begins by saying:
	"Clause 1 means that the Secretary of State would only be permitted to approve proposals if she considers that they would contribute to the raising of standards".
	It refers specifically to the powers to innovate.

Baroness Blatch: It is true that the letter was written in relation to "innovate". However, all I am saying is that the compulsory nature of the subject is already distorted in this Bill. In fact, the reply to the Written Question from which I quoted a short time ago refers to Clause 2. The actual question put to the Minister was whether this would be possible under proposals set out in Clause 2, and I have already repeated the reply. The compulsory nature of the subject is already compromised by Clause 2, and, I believe, by Clause 5.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Clause 2 relates to the power to innovate. The reply given to the noble Baroness referred to the power to innovate. I am sorry if the noble Baroness finds that confusing. However, both Clause 1 and Clause 2 refer to the power to innovate. That is the issue to which I was replying.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: Perhaps I may return to Amendment No. 33. I thank the Minister for her reply. I have a copy of the policy statement, which the noble Baroness was kind enough to send to us. Can she tell me what the difference is between a policy statement and a regulation? Quite clearly, those who are trying to run schools do need governance as to whether or not they should apply. I recognise that they cannot do so unless they have some kind of guidance. Surely it would be sensible to cover this by way of guidance, or through regulations. I have a slight preference for guidance because I believe it to be slightly less centralising.
	It would be sensible for me to withdraw my amendment. Perhaps the Minister could write to me with the answer to my question.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am in a position to give the noble Baroness the answer. A policy statement is put before Parliament, whereas regulations are the vehicle by which it is implemented. However, the two should reflect each other.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: Am I right in thinking that the policy statement issued now will lead to regulations at a later date?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Yes.

Baroness Blatch: I am sorry to be pernickety again, but did the Minister say that the policy statement is a document that is put before Parliament? I have a copy of the statement, but I have never seen any mention on an Order Paper of it being put before Parliament. If the document is placed in the Library of the House, that is very different. The placing of a document before Parliament is a very formal process. It is important to know whether it is put before Parliament, or whether it is simply a document for information in order to clarify the Government's thinking underlying the policy.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The noble Baroness is absolutely correct: I was misled—

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: By me!

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I was not going to name him, but I was misled by my noble friend Lord McIntosh. As I said, the noble Baroness is absolutely correct: the document is put in the Library, and not laid before Parliament. I apologise. I shall get better at this in time.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Walmsley: moved Amendment No. 34:
	Page 4, line 33, at end insert—
	"( ) In so far as regulations made under this section relate to a pay or conditions provision they shall in addition to providing for an exemption or modification make provision also for the determination of the relevant pay or conditions by means of negotiation between relevant bodies and representatives of those to whom different pay and conditions are to be applied."

Baroness Walmsley: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 38, 48 and 49. The purpose of this group of amendments is to probe the Government's intentions in relation to qualifying schools exempt from legislation relating to teachers' pay and conditions.
	The amendments seek to ensure negotiating rights for staff and their representatives in schools with earned autonomy. There has been a long argument about whether the existing statutory procedure for the determination of teachers' pay and conditions conforms to international conventions. Without the provisions sought by these amendments the Government could place themselves further outside their international obligations.
	Clause 9(1), as it stands, clearly assumes that pay and other conditions of school staff exempted from statutory arrangements will be determined unilaterally by the governing body, even though the governing body will not be the employer of staff in community and voluntary controlled schools. Clearly that is nonsense.
	Given recent difficulties in recruiting teachers, it is unlikely that schools will want to move away from the school teachers' pay and conditions document in order to worsen teachers' conditions. However, it is easy to see how some schools may be tempted to move away from it in order to recruit staff, without adequate consideration of the impact on retention of other staff. That could exacerbate the current staffing problems, the extent of which the Government will not know until they have conducted the long-awaited staffing and curriculum survey, on which the Minister recently told the House in an Answer to a Starred Question from myself that we shall have to wait another year.
	However, there is nothing to prevent teachers in any school negotiating the non-statutory aspects of pay and conditions. By involving the teachers' unions, the amendment would ensure that such negotiations were placed on a whole-school basis. It would therefore protect schools from inadvertently straying into starting internecine wars in staff rooms, supposedly havens of peace and refuges from the stresses and strains of the classroom. I beg to move.

Lord Peston: Amendment No. 37 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady David. Broadly it is in line with what the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has said. What is the point of the clause on pay? The Minister will remember that this kind of opt-out from statutory pay and conditions was a characteristic of the GM schools regime. It is interesting that of the GM schools—they numbered only about 1,000—only three opted out. One wonders why the Government have decided that they should return to the theme. What is the point?
	The positive side of offering more, which is what the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, spoke of, must have an effect if they are able to do this. If they are not able to offer more I cannot see why they have been given the power. It must have an effect on recruitment, which will have adverse effects on neighbouring schools that do not have the same power.
	I do not want to make a Treasury point, but I am amazed that the Treasury would want to give any schools the power to start spending excess sums of money that the Treasury cannot control. I should have thought that the Treasury would be keen to retain the nationally agreed scales. Maybe the Treasury, for once, has not noticed this Bill going through Parliament.
	My honourable friend the Minister with responsibility for schools said in the other place that he was aware of this point. He also appeared to say that he did not believe that anyone would make much use of it. He did not accept that there would be much possible effect on neighbouring schools. However, he must then find himself with a logical difficulty. If schools do not make use of the power, why are we giving it to them? And if they do make use of it, there is no way of getting round the fact that it will have an effect on other schools.
	Mostly we concentrate on poaching by means of excess pay, but I am not convinced by the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. She believes that there will be no attempt to cut pay. Anyone who knows anything about the way that organisations work knows that if they run into financial difficulties, they may well ask members of staff whether they still want their jobs. Members of staff who are not highly mobile may then be told that they had better accept a worsening of pay or work more hours.
	I do not regard as trivial the part of my amendment that talks about poorer pay and conditions. But my main point is that I regard most of this as hypothetical and overwhelmingly I can see no case for any of the pay and conditions provisions being included in the Bill. Therefore I ask my noble friend to think again about this. It is something that a sensible government would not introduce into the education system. It is asking for trouble. It will be no discredit for the Government to say, "This is a silly thing. We were taken with it in a fit of madness and the time has come to return to sanity".

Lord Lucas: Over the years it seems to me that the national pay scales for teachers and nurses have served to make them among the most poorly and underpaid professions in this country. If one surrenders one's bargaining power and deals not with local people who understand one's specific qualities, but subjects oneself to a national system, there is little else that could happen over the long-term other than pay going down. One need only look at the train drivers to see what happens when that position is reversed. They negotiate with people rather more local to their place of employment and their salaries go up at a great rate.
	I should like to see teachers' salaries rising at a considerable rate. It is a good idea to have mechanisms in place which encourage schools to pay good teachers money over and above what they are worth. It encourages them to use teachers more innovatively and more efficiently, beyond anything else. Being stuck in the current stultifying system is one of the great drawbacks of the present school system.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, raises the prospect of it being even worse. Thank goodness we will never see a Liberal government.

Lord Peston: I am not sure whether it is allowed in the rules, but perhaps I can offer the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, a bet. He is younger than me so he may live to see this happen. Is he really saying that if we went along these lines, teachers overall will be better off? Wearing my economics hat, I bet him that the best they can hope for is as good and the more likely outcome is worse. If there were ever a case of let us wait and live to see the day, this is a very good example of possible predictions.

Lord Lucas: There are only a few examples available at the moment. But can the noble Lord say whether teachers at the Thomas Telford School are paid better or worse than average?

Lord Peston: That is an easy question for me. I do not know.

Lord Dearing: Perhaps I could add a word of caution on schools being involved in local pay negotiations. I know no more expensive hobby for an amateur than to engage in pay negotiations with professionals. I have tried!
	I know the Local Government Association is concerned about this aspect. Local initiatives by one school will inevitably impact across the system. If this is to go forward, it may be advisable for the schools to consult their LEA before committing themselves.

Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Peston, a question through the Minister, unconnected with whether or not people receive poorer pay. I believe that the impetus would be for greater pay rather than for poorer pay. Certainly that is the case where it has been exercised, as my noble friend said. And I can answer the question in relation to the Thomas Telford School; the teachers are paid infinitely more than the normal national pay and conditions stipulate.
	In relation to paragraph (b) in Amendment No. 37, staff are moving from school to school all the time. They move in and out of the faith and independent sectors; they move across the maintained sectors; they move from primary to secondary and the other way round. It is difficult to know therefore what is and what is not poaching. Some schools certainly give a nod and a wink about a forthcoming vacancy and invite people to think about it. That is the normal sort of head-hunting that takes place. It would be nearly impossible to prove a case of poaching of teachers.
	My other point is more philosophical. Teachers should be free to go where they want. No teacher moves by compulsion. If a teacher wishes to move from one school to another, it may not be the pay that is the attraction; it may be the philosophy or the ethos of the school; it may be that somebody wants to move into or out of a faith school. So paragraph (b) is questionable. I have no comment to make on paragraph (a).

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I raise the example of further education colleges, which when they became bodies corporate were able to move over to locally negotiated pay and where, on the whole, pay has not been raised. Many staff were then made self-employed—effectively they became contract staff to the further education colleges. One complaint that we heard last week at a lobby concerned the low rates of pay and the lack of pay increases for years.

Lord Peston: As I was asked a question that I do not take to be rhetorical, we ought to remember what we are discussing. We are discussing the creation of a special class of schools within the whole class of schools with additional powers. We are not discussing all schools competing equally against each other, which might lead to a proper outcome. A special group will be allowed to do things that other schools cannot.
	I am asking my noble friend: what is it about those schools that we should give them those powers? What would they gain—what would be gained—from that? Will the Government reassure us that that will not be to the detriment of schools that do not have those powers? I am about to use a cliché that I took a lifetime oath never to use, but I shall use it because I am getting tired. We are discussing our standard level playing field question.

The Earl of Listowel: I apologise for not being present when the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, moved the amendment. I was not as alert as I should have been. I have heard teachers in Southwark, Haringey and elsewhere express concern that some schools have the most difficult pupils. They struggle and everything seems to work against them. I am worried that the introduction of special payments to certain schools may add to that negative spiral, by which the most successful schools can hire the best teachers and they are drained away from the least successful schools. I should like reassurance that that will not happen—that sink schools will not be created by the measure.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I shall start by addressing Amendments Nos. 34 and 38. I should stress that we intend to make the application procedure for schools contemplating making changes to pay and conditions provisions as simple and straightforward as possible. That is why we intend that qualifying schools that apply for exemption from or modification to designated pay and conditions provisions will be entitled to have their applications approved by the Secretary of State as of right. In general, the Secretary of State should approve proposals under the innovation clauses. Earned autonomy should mean just that.
	With reference to the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, we have agreed closely to reconsider the criteria. We want to bring in our good schools with good leadership and management, recognising the circumstances in which they operate, so that we have a breadth and allow those schools to develop under earned autonomy. So it will not just be for one group of schools. It is based on good quality leadership and good standards. As I said, I shall return to discuss the criteria.
	We fully recognise and accept the right of teachers at any school where such proposals are made to be consulted. After the governing body has made proposals—teachers are of course represented on and fully involved in the governing body—consultation will be a legal requirement. That is written into the Bill in Clause 7.
	In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, when the governing body makes its determinations, it must have regard to general employment law. It will be changing people's contracts of employment; it cannot do that unilaterally. It will be able to take advice from the local education authority or other personnel services providers about how lawfully to give effect to its exemptions or modifications.
	It is not clear that negotiating machinery would be needed in every case. Of course, if a school secured extensive exemptions, some local pay determination machinery would be needed to replace the national machinery, but the earned autonomy provisions allow for the possibility of minor modifications and exemptions to suit local circumstances.
	The amendment would require negotiation and agreement with the relevant teacher unions at an inappropriate stage in the procedure. Not only would that slow the process; it would make it far more burdensome for the schools. It would mean that an application for any change, however small, would be subject to that requirement.
	No sensible governing body will propose changes that will be detrimental to teachers. All governing bodies will keep a close eye on any potential effect on recruitment and retention. The consultation stage of the process gives teachers full opportunity to put their views. No governing body would push through unpopular proposals with no support from the head teacher and staff in the school. The last thing that they want is that teachers—their most valuable asset—should vote with their feet.
	I welcome the discussion on the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Peston. I am sure that my noble friend will not be surprised to hear that I cannot support the amendment in practice. However, I hope to offer some reassurance that will satisfy him. I shall explain why the wording of the amendment leaves us in some difficulty. I understand the sentiment behind the use of the word "poorer" in the first part of the amendment and appreciate it at a basic level. However, it would be difficult to define in practice because of its subjective nature and the complexity of the arrangements that could be put in place by a school subject to earned autonomy and the difficulty of comparing them with what can also be viewed as complex arrangements relating to pay and conditions at a national level.
	With a potentially wide range of spine points, allowances and bonuses, to say nothing of potential variations in working time, it could be less straightforward than it might at first appear to compare arrangements between schools. I stress once more that no sensible governing body will offer its teachers pay and conditions that are, overall, inferior to those that might be obtained in a school not subject to earned autonomy. On the contrary, they will not pursue the autonomy route unless it offers benefits for their staff, better working arrangements and long-term advantages for the school and its pupils.
	That leads me on to consideration of the second part of Amendment No. 37 about the poaching of teachers. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, explained, the proposed change would go far beyond what was workable in practice. It would prevent—or at least restrict—the movement of any staff into schools subject to earned autonomy but not out of them. That restriction would also cover staff who are not in any way subject to the earned autonomy arrangements—for example, non-teaching staff and classroom assistants—through the blanket use of the term "other staff".
	I would expect that, if anything, teachers in schools subject to earned autonomy are unlikely to be offered inferior terms and conditions, for the reasons that I have outlined. There could be, for example, a bonus for long service, an allowance for running an out-of-school club or a revised pay scale in return for more flexible working arrangements. We must remember that schools subject to earned autonomy will have no more money than other schools to pay their staff.
	It is possible that such earned autonomy schools will be attractive to teachers in other schools if the particular arrangements appeal to them. However, all schools already have the flexibility to offer additional allowances—in particular, recruitment and retention allowances—that can be paid to any classroom teacher, subject to set maxima. The latest changes set out by the STRB and agreed by the Government also offer increased flexibility on head teachers' pay that many schools will welcome. Schools also have the freedom to offer discretionary experience points to classroom teachers. The national pay and conditions arrangements are far from rigid.
	Amendment No. 48 would cause us problems. I have already said that we believe strongly that the arrangements set out in the Bill for the practical application and implementation of changes to teachers' pay and conditions arrangements that may follow from the earned autonomy provisions are the right ones. The process that we are putting forward is fair for all concerned, not least teachers, and enables the process to be carried forward with as little bureaucracy as possible on the part of governors and schools.
	The amendment would remove from the governing body the explicit authority and duty to make a determination regarding teachers' pay and conditions, to the extent that national conditions do not apply. It is important to be clear about where that duty lies, and it is consistent with the purpose of earned autonomy to extend governors' powers. In most schools, governors are the "relevant body" for the purpose of making pay decisions under the terms of the statutory school teachers' pay and conditions document. In an earned autonomy school, they would continue to make pay decisions; for example, in the case of performance pay. But to remove from governors the ultimate power to make decisions on pay under earned autonomy arrangements, leaving it as a matter for negotiation, cuts right across these statutory arrangements in a way which would only bring confusion and inconsistency.
	The amendment would also remove from the LEA the duty to support the governors in giving effect to governors' decisions on matters relating to pay and conditions. For example, the LEA holds the contracts of employment of teachers at community and voluntary controlled schools. If a teacher's contract of employment needs to be changed as a consequence of earned autonomy, the LEA must be required to make the necessary changes. We believe that paragraph (b) is a helpful clarification.
	Finally, the amendment would take away the clarification which is necessary for practical reasons about the position of a teacher in respect of pay and conditions from the time the order enabling changes to take place is made and its actual implementation.
	Although I understand the reason for Amendment No. 49, I am afraid that I cannot agree that it is appropriate. First, its effect is too wide. The governing body would need to negotiate in some way with any body which represents teachers, whether or not it even has any members at the school. For a governing body to have to do this in respect of every change, small or large, which might affect pay and conditions—even if every teacher at the school had already expressed full support for it during the consultation process—would be quite unnecessary.
	It is unnecessary because, although the Bill gives governing bodies the right to determine pay and conditions of teachers in circumstances where an order gives them the right to do so, general employment law means that the governing body cannot make unilateral decisions and they will need to negotiate with the teachers concerned in a manner appropriate to the modification which is being made.
	I should point out that the point will not have been reached at a school without the general support of teachers at the school, so the governing body would be proceeding within a constructive climate. What we do not intend is for a form of local negotiating machinery to be imposed, which we believe Amendment No. 40 would do in a heavy-handed way. It will be down to the governing body to carry this forward in a way appropriate to modification or modifications being made.
	None the less, I can give clear assurances to Members of the Committee that there will need to be proper consultation with all teachers affected. I hope that that will reassure the noble Baroness.

Baroness Walmsley: I thank the Minister for her reply. In laying out the flexibilities which schools already have in terms of pay and conditions, she explained better than I why we do not need the provisions about pay and conditions in Clause 6. She has great confidence in the ability of governing bodies to do the right thing in this respect. Of course, governing bodies are loyal to their particular schools, but they have no responsibility for all the schools around them. By including the appropriate teaching unions and the local authorities in the negotiations we could avoid the situation in which there was a negative impact on other schools surrounding the few which would attract the additional powers when they have earned autonomy. Perhaps we can return to that matter at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Peston: moved Amendment No. 35:
	Page 4, line 33, at end insert—
	"( ) No regulations with regard to exemption from any curriculum provision should enable material to be introduced which is extraneous to any subject, as normally understood."

Lord Peston: In speaking to Amendments Nos. 35 and 36, I feel obliged to apologise to the Committee. I regard the two amendments as absolutely fundamental to the Bill and to our system of education. I regard it as absolutely absurd that we are debating such amendments at 10.15 p.m. The sooner we abandon the arcane procedures of your Lordships' House and adopt the suggestions which my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House will put forward to us soon, so that on a Thursday we will stop at seven o'clock and on any other day we will stop at ten o'clock, the better. This House will become more efficient and will be able to deal with matters of this kind in a much more appropriate way.
	Back-Benchers on this side of the House have no power in that regard. We must debate amendments when they arise and therefore I see no way in which I can avoid raising such matters. Furthermore, I regret to say that I can see no way of doing it briefly. So unless my noble friend who is the Whip on the Front Bench would care to move that we adjourn, I shall now proceed. I do not believe that he is going to adjourn the Committee.
	Both of the amendments take us into the area of religious schools. They also take us into the area of the curriculum and they take us to fundamental questions which need answers. I have not yet heard those answers. What is the precise contribution that religious schools make to education—I shall concentrate on education rather than religion—that causes us to have them at all, to wish to expand their number and, if I may put it this way, to wish to extend them to additional religions? That is one question.
	The second question, which is not unrelated to the first, is: what is the connection between what I would call the religious ethos of a school and the national curriculum? I assume we would agree that, in some cases, there is no connection. Young people are taught that the square root of two is an irrational number and I cannot see how postulating one or other religion or deity could throw any light on that question. Thus if we are discussing the serious mathematics being taught in school, then the problem does not arise. I assume that it would also not arise in theoretical physics and, in so far as my own subject is taught in schools, that it could not possibly arise in the teaching of economics.
	However, the question is: where can it arise? At this point I would add: if it cannot arise anywhere, why do religious schools exist anyway? Those are the kinds of questions that are before us and on which we must reflect.
	I turn now to the question of where religious ethos might arise. The obvious subject to start with is history. Before I move on to religion, I shall cite another example. Any noble Lord who has seen an American school history textbook will know that the account of the American Revolution or the War of Independence in that textbook will bear no resemblance to what I was taught at school. Anyone reading such a book would wonder at what an extraordinarily biased view of history the Americans are being taught. A fortiori, if one reads the chapter on the battle of Waterloo in a French history textbook, you have to be incredibly clever to discover that they lost and we won. Indeed, if you miss the last sentence, then you will not discover it at all.
	I am perfectly well aware that in the subject of history then—what is the right word?—bias or point or view will have an impact. We should have no difficulty with that. Therefore, if I were in a Catholic school, it would not surprise me if the way in which the Reformation is taught had certain nuances which would be a little different from those I would encounter if I were in a Protestant school or if I were not in a religious school at all. Again, I should say that that does not remotely trouble me. What would trouble me would be if there were no such nuances. That is not what I am about.
	Perhaps I may turn to areas where, again, I would not expect there to be any difference. In English literature, if the school play was "The Merchant of Venice", I would hope that the play would be dealt with in the same way in a Jewish school, in a Muslim school, in a Protestant school and in a school that was not religious at all. Equally, given his views on religion, if Shelley's poetry was being discussed in English literature classes, I would hope that no religious school would make any attempt to undermine the beauty of that poet's work by saying, "Well, it can't be very good because of his views". Again, I hope that that would not happen.
	Then I have to ask, if such things would not happen, then where does the religious impact come from? That takes me on to what started me on the subject in the debate on Second Reading; namely, the fact that there appear to be people who not only believe in what is called Creationism, but who actually think that it would be appropriate to introduce it into schools in the relevant subject, biology. I did not know that such people still existed in our country. I found that impossible to believe. I know that there are some flat earthers around; but when I inquired as to whether there were some flat earthers in our schools, I was not able to find a single case of anyone teaching physics on a flat earth basis.
	The question I come to is this. For anyone who knows anything about biology—unfortunately, too few do—matters such as evolution and natural selection are not only a part of biology but permeate the whole of it. If a teacher were to include in the curriculum matters of a creationist kind, that would be immensely damaging. More to the point, who is there to protect the children against such an event? In the Emmanuel school case, Ofsted was not there to protect anyone. Indeed, Ofsted did not seem to notice it and gave the relevant school a good assessment.
	A similar question arises in one of the most fascinating topics in the history of science—that is, the age of the universe. An attempt was made to show on the basis of the Old Testament that the earth was 4,040 years old. Indeed, an attempt was made to date the exact day and time that the world was created. It shows the incredible ingenuity of the human mind that one can do that kind of work. I find it marvellous.
	Occasionally I come across people who, in the face of the fact that the world is billions of years old and, on the basis of all that we know about physics—the world will come to an end unless all the theories of entropies, thermodynamics and so on are wrong—say, "There is no problem here. The whole of the previous history was invented at the same time as the world was created 4,040 years ago and somehow there will be a new creation in several million years' time".
	But those are substantive questions. My concern is to ask what goes on in these schools and what it is that they do. The schools that I know about do not behave in such a way. No school that I have come across so far—except for the Emmanuel school case—would dream of allowing such matters into the sciences, the arts and so on.
	My worry is twofold. First, can I believe that that will be the case in the future, especially with the great expansion of what appears to be acceptable or called a religion? Secondly, will not existing schools, if the danger arises, also feel that they can safely go in that direction? I have no difficulty with people who have faith which is separate from science—it is a classic problem in philosophy—but I am always puzzled by the fact that for a lot of people who have faith, faith does not seem to be enough. The history of theology and philosophy shows that, ultimately, believers want more. They are not content to say, "I have faith in the existence of a deity", or, "I have faith in that". Throughout history, there has been an urgent desire to prove things as well. For the great thinkers, such as Thomas Aquinas, faith was not good enough; he needed a proof. I would argue that a proof is always impossible and you have to accept things as a matter of faith.
	But these are side issues. The main issue is that the Government have said three things. First, they have said that they rather like religious schools; secondly, they have said that they would like to have more religious schools; and, thirdly, they have said that we have got to include more religions in the group that can have religious schools.
	The reason I raise these matters, at twenty-five past ten at night, is to ask the simple question: how do we protect the national curriculum? How do we protect the great scientific traditions of our country and the great humanities traditions of our country from the encroachment of those who may not respect them and who would allow religious matters—which have their place—to cross over into these areas?
	I repeat my point that I am not happy that I am raising these matters in an empty Chamber at a late hour. But, as this is when the amendments have come before the Committee, I have no choice. I have raised the matter, and I am interested to hear the response of one or two other Members of the Committee whom I hope I have persuaded to take part in the debate. I beg to move.

The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: I suspect that Members of the Committee expect me to make some contribution—although I must say that I had not interpreted the words of the amendment in the light in which the noble Lord, Lord Peston, referred to it. I had intended to speak of behalf of my former profession, RE teacher and specialist, and not on the generality of faith schools or on the Emmanuel school, which is no part of the Church of England's family of schools. I believe that the date the noble Lord was seeking is 4004 BC, which I believe Archbishop Ussher came up with in the 17th or 18th century.
	I shall deal merely with the amendment and not with the larger questions raised. I do not believe it is appropriate to deal with those at this time of night, and I wholeheartedly support the noble Lord's comments about our procedures. No curriculum is value free when it is taught. When I was an RE specialist, I was always extremely worried about what the English masters were putting across by way of interpretation and values in regard to religious matters and the faith of others. That happens across the board.
	The amendment as worded places a strict delimitation on religious education. I am sure that the noble Lord would agree that it is probably too vague to be practical in the real world of schools. For example, would it prohibit the teaching of the poetry of George Herbert or John Milton within the English curriculum, since an element of religious education is necessary to understand those authors' works? Would it place a similar—

Lord Peston: The answer to that sort of question is simply no. It would not prohibit such teaching.

The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: As worded, it could do so. One would be dealing with matters that are properly part of the RE curriculum in order to get the youngsters to understand the poetry. Again, it would almost rule out the teaching of the history of the Tudors because of the religious matters involved. One might ask how we deal with the Middle East today. As the amendment is worded, it gives rise to a series of issues that would lead to confusion and great difficulty.
	I am trying to get my mind round this. I know that the amendment refers to the curriculum, which is published and agreed, and in the case of RE, through the SACRE, is carefully agreed by a series of groups of committees which come together to form that body. So it is probably more a matter of public participation in the creation of the curriculum in the generality of the community schools. As I understand it, the noble Lord is using the amendment as a peg for the general teaching that goes on.
	It is said that hard cases make bad law. I wonder whether, by singling out the Emmanuel school in Gateshead, we are drifting into an area where, as the noble Lord admitted, we can think of no examples of schools in the maintained sector, or even within the generality of the independent sector, where these kinds of difficulties between science and religion occur. We need to be reminded that many scientists are people of faith and indeed practise their faiths across the great world religion. That is fact.
	I hope that having raised this matter the noble Lord will wait until there is a greater engagement in the course of the Bill on the whole issue of faith schools and what they do or do not do.
	As drafted, the amendment is unworkable and would do a great disservice to RE teachers and to others who deal with matters that raise ethical, moral, spiritual and religious issues in the general curriculum. On those grounds, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Blatch: I am puzzled by what appears to be almost an obsession on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, about faith schools and his apparent fear of any extension of their numbers. He has made no secret of his disappointment in the present policy of welcoming and encouraging faith schools. The noble Lord is right that the amendment requires a great deal of debate, but, like the right reverend Prelate, I cannot get my mind round what he finds fundamentally disagreeable about the existence of faith schools. We shall deal later with the issue of whether we should have faith schools, so I shall leave my comments on that, but the noble Lord seems disturbed by the notion of faith schools and would apparently like them out of the system altogether.
	The amendment would be almost impossible for teachers to comply with—not just RE teachers, but teachers generally. The impact of religion on art, culture, the lives of people and even on science, scientists and the ethics of science—I know that there is the whole Emmanuel issue to discuss—is so great that they are inextricably linked. That is why we have moved from religious instruction to religious education. This is all about religious education, not religious instruction. I am not offended by faith schools—in fact, I positively welcome them. We have always been very tolerant about these things in this country. We have a tradition of people who hold a strong faith but who positively prefer to go to a secular school, but we also have a tradition of people who hold a strong faith—or sometimes not such a strong faith—and who prefer the ethos of a school that supports a particular religion. I do not find that offensive. I find it all part of the rich pattern of education.
	Like the right reverend Prelate, I find the amendments unworkable in an educational sense. They would do a disservice to teachers, but worse than that, it would be asking the impossible of teachers to accept what I believe is behind the amendments.

Baroness Walmsley: I am a biologist and my subject is most affected by the issue that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has raised. Like him, I abhor the teaching of creationism in a state-funded school, mainly because it is so far beyond what any credible scientist would accept as to be incompatible with providing a broadly based education based on the real facts and possibly preparing our children for a career in science.
	However, just as the noble Lord has difficulty understanding what is meant in other parts of the Bill, I have difficulty understanding what he means by "extraneous". I am afraid that I feel that Amendment No. 35 is unworkable.
	On Amendment No. 36, society today has to deal with many ethical issues. As a biology teacher, I have always felt the responsibility to try to prepare children to make those decisions when they become adults.
	I feel that there is a need to prepare children to make moral decisions, not based on a particular faith, on biological matters. I therefore feel that it is not inappropriate to introduce those types of issues into the teaching of science in our schools, particularly given that there are so many issues which citizens who take the responsibility to take part in politics feel they must take upon themselves. We have to prepare our children for that. Therefore, on this occasion, I am afraid that I am not able to support the noble Lord, Lord Peston, in his amendment.

Lord Dearing: I had guessed that the issue of Emmanuel might come up. Not knowing anything in particular about Emmanuel, I thought that I would find out what was going on so that it might inform the House. I have not a lot of expert knowledge. However, if creationism is defined, as I believe it often is, as a belief that,
	"Earth History can be clearly dated to show that the world is younger than 10,000 years and . . . that the universe was made in six days, each made up of 24 hours",
	then, according to Emmanuel,
	"The truth is that our Science Department teaches neither".
	Furthermore,
	"Within the assumption that 'creationism' is defined",
	as I have defined it,
	"such 'creationism' is not and has never been taught within Emmanuel College".
	I am told that the teachers,
	"within the College's Science Department ... hold a wide variety of views regarding these issues, ranging from atheistic evolution giving rise to life from nothing to the concept which sees everything as having been created by an Intelligent Designer God from nothing",
	and innumerable views in between.
	I made inquiries about the children who go to Emmanuel school. They correspond almost exactly with the normal ability range. In science, 87 per cent of them received A to C markings in GCSE, way above the national average. It is a faith school which is not a Church of England school. Being a technology college, it does not have a duty to teach the national curriculum, yet it does so in science. So perhaps there is more to be said about Emmanuel than is commonly thought. I was told that the matter is being pursued by Her Majesty's Inspectors and the Commons Science and Technology Committee. Perhaps we will see what they make of it.
	I was puzzled by Amendments Nos. 35 and 36. If people are to be given greater freedom in the curriculum, new material will come in. I could not see precisely what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, had in mind in being so concerned about new material, unless it was specifically religious material. I do not think that it is part of the Government's thinking deliberately to make space for more religious teaching. However, RE is one of the subjects in the national curriculum examined at GCSE. Very many schools do the RE short course, which is the legitimate curriculum subject. It may be that, if there were more space in the curriculum, some schools would choose to do the full RE GCSE.
	Religion is part of the reality of the world. We cannot wish it away. It is there around all of us. It is central to very many people's lives. It influences the way we live and what happens in our streets and our homes. We cannot say, "You must pretend there is not such a thing".
	So I turn to the point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn. If one is teaching history after 1530 right through the Stuarts and even beyond, one cannot make sense of it without addressing the religious controversies of the day. People burned at the stake for them. Kingdoms were at risk for them. In human geography, one cannot avoid looking at the religious composition of the world. As the right reverend Prelate said, the point arises in teaching English literature. We would have to give kids some help to understand, for example, Manley Hopkins' poetry, which is so complex that his friend the Poet Laureate, Robert Bridges, could not understand it.
	Religion is so much concerned with the way to live and about moral and ethical issues. They pervade art and literature. You cannot say that because religion considers those moral and ethical issues we cannot discuss moral and ethical issues in the context of other subjects. While I understand that within his framework of reference the noble Lord is concerned about freeing up the curriculum and providing opportunities as regards extraneous religious material, I do not think that that is part of anyone's thinking. If his thinking is that it is wrong in understanding life to take into account the religious dimension, he is not giving people a full education.

Lord Lucas: Although I come from the same side of the street as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, in being one of the irreligious, I do not think that he is going in the right direction with these amendments. I do not know of a serious faith which does not involve believing something that looks from my point of view totally ridiculous. It seems to be a characteristic of all faiths. Although creationism is particularly banana-brained in that it implies a God who has lied in every living thing and in the air, water and rocks beneath us and only told the truth in a book—which I find a pretty strange God—I do not think that this is something we should worry about too much. If it affected the way the curriculum was taught and the way a school was being properly conducted, it would be the kind of thing which Ofsted ought to pick up. If Ofsted thinks that something is going wrong in that regard, that ought to be taken seriously. However, I believe that we are well enough guarded by Ofsted which may have missed this point once but has now been put on guard against these things. It is a matter it will have to watch if we expand the range of religions which have schools and it is something we shall have to watch generally. However, I think that that is sufficient.
	In particular, I do not think that we should go down the roads proposed by the amendments. I am enormously in favour of broadening out curriculum subjects, of merging them or doing things in different ways and not teaching in little compartments which so restrict us and do not allow the discussion of history in the context of science or science in the context of history, as if the two were separate things at such a basic level as GCSE. I should like to see much fuzzier boundaries between subjects, if one could find a way of introducing them and teaching effectively. If you have a religious school—there are many religious people who want religious schools and I have no objection at all to them having them—everything in that school will be permeated by the religion concerned. I cannot think of a single subject which would not be touched by a religion, even one that is as familiar to me as Catholicism. Certainly, what is true for that surely must be true for most religions. I do not think that you can separate out religious feeling from other subjects. You can do so possibly as regards mathematics but not as regards any other subject.
	I do not think that the noble Lord can claim that economics is safe from religion. I regard Marxism as a religion and that has exerted plenty of influence on economics. I do not think that we should seek to draw these boundaries or seek to exclude religion or philosophy from application to any subject where they have a bearing.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: Would my noble friend care to comment on the fact that the individual pupil will also bring something to the teaching that he receives? It is very possible, say, with history, to take a purely religious line almost throughout. Similarly, the pupil can bring his own ethics, morals and home background to bear through his religion on all the other subjects that we have talked about.

Lord Lucas: I entirely agree. Most of us develop a healthy scepticism for the philosophic element of what we are taught in school and we accumulate our own philosophies from a variety of sources. I have left behind many of the things that my teachers would have liked to inculcate into me, and I imagine that many other Members of the Committee have done so, too.
	This is a serious subject but I do not believe that the amendments are the right way to approach it. I hope that we shall later return to the question of the way in which religion in schools should relate to the state. To say that religion should not be part of the curriculum or permeate all subjects is to misunderstand what we are as human beings, which is essentially philosophic beings who bring our beliefs into every aspect of what we do and study.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I am beginning to feel rather sorry for the noble Lord, Lord Peston, but I am not going to provide him with any succour by saying that I agree with him.
	The amendments are unworkable and I fundamentally do not agree with their approach. I could not understand Amendment No. 35 when I read it; I just put two exclamation marks beside it and waited to see what he said. Perhaps we should try following the logic of his proposal. The theories of Keynes would have been regarded as heresy and would never have been taught because they would have been regarded as being extraneous to the economics curriculum by many economists in the 1930s. The teachings of many people at any moment in time—Galileo and Darwin are two examples—were regarded as being totally heretical to the mainstream school of thought at that time. Knowledge progresses, as we know perfectly well, by debating such matters.
	I have no sympathy with the proposal. Amendment No. 35 is totally illiberal. On Amendment No. 36, I agree with all those who said that our whole culture is infiltrated to a very great degree. One cannot put these matters into little boxes. As my noble friend Lady Walmsley said, in teaching biology one has to approach and discuss various points of ethics. That is true of many other areas. I am sorry but I simply do not agree with the amendments.

Lord Davies of Oldham: It is my misfortune this evening to have been involved, first, with a small technical series of amendments, in relation to which I ran into untold trouble, and now with the most fundamental debate that could ever take place in the House on education. I have arrived equipped with a contribution that would last for an hour and a half but, in deference to the lateness of the hour, to which my noble friend has drawn attention, I will truncate it to three or four minutes.
	I was unable to respond to my noble friend's earlier plea that his debate should be arranged for a more convenient time because, first, an arrangement had been arrived at through the usual channels before he stood up. I am the last person, as I am sure he will agree, to break agreements between the usual channels.
	Secondly, my noble friend will recall that it was Hegel who said that the owl of Minerva takes flight at night. If we are going to have a philosophical and religious debate, we should have it quite late in the evening. Unfortunately, we cannot go beyond 11 p.m. so we shall have a rather more truncated debate than he might like.
	A third factor, to which Members of the Committee have referred, is involved; that is, that this debate is taking place within the framework of this piece of legislation and has been raised through amendments to the legislation. I am afraid that my noble friend is bound by the rules of the game. As and when those amendments come up, that is when they will be debated.
	It is also the case that, although many of us would like to indulge in substantial debate on the depth of these issues, on which he made a most eloquent plea, we are concerned with what the amendments would do to the Bill. I am bound therefore to restrict my remarks somewhat to the technicalities in that regard. However, I do so gladly and against the background that there have been outstanding contributions from all Members of the Committee who have spoken in this debate. I know that the noble Lord is in a minority but he put his case with the greatest eloquence. That is why he provoked everyone to respond to him. I have strained to match his eloquence and believe that in every case I have succeeded in doing so and have answered many of the issues that he raised.
	I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, for defining the Emmanuel position. I have substantial information on that, but the noble Lord indicated that the college teaches science in a manner and to a level which is acceptable to Ofsted, to inspectors and to the examination board which examines the students. Therefore, I believe that he can rest assured on that point.
	With regard to the more general issue of how prescriptive we could be about particular subjects, I believe that everyone who has spoken in the debate—in particular, the right reverend Prelate—has identified how difficult that matter is. There is no doubt about it; it is not only a question that certain themes embrace more than one academic subject but that we are only too happy to see certain academic subjects broadened out and taken in conjunction with other issues. To take the most obvious example, citizenship has recently been introduced into the curriculum. We should certainly never be able to discuss citizenship unless we did so in the context of religion as well; otherwise, how would we spread the concept of understanding other faiths and reach the degree of tolerance that we should like to see developed in our society, which is a crucial part of citizenship?
	Likewise, as Members on all sides of the Committee have indicated, there are a number of ways in which subjects interlink and inform each other so as to produce genuine education and enlightenment for students. Therefore, in those terms, I believe that we have had a most useful theoretical debate. My only comment to my noble friend is that he is a skilled parliamentarian. He knows that there are other ways in which these issues can be debated at great length, even in the afternoon. It is for him to employ that strategy if he so wishes.
	However, this evening we are discussing his amendments. In addition to the reservations that have been expressed about the amendments on all sides of the Chamber, perhaps I may make the most obvious point. If the amendments were carried, we should be placing on schools which had received earned autonomy a restriction greater than that placed on all other schools. I am sure that my noble friend does not intend that. I believe that he is seeking to air the issue, and he does so within this framework. But the logic of the amendment would be that schools which reached the position of earned autonomy would find themselves at a level of restriction which they would not be under if they had not earned that autonomy. Surely that would be a great contradiction in terms.
	I recognise the value of my noble friend's contribution this evening. I believe that we have all enjoyed the debate. I know that I am being dreadfully short in this all-too-truncated reply, but perhaps I may assure him that I have used one-eighth of the notes that I have available. There may be another occasion on which he can explore these matters, and I am sure that he will take full advantage of that. However, this evening I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.

Lord Peston: I thank my noble friend for his reply. Obviously I am losing my talent as a teacher. I believed that I was debating the subject of religious schools; I was not debating religion. If noble Lords want to hear me on the subject of religion, they will really hear something.
	I must also say, very acerbically, that I have heard some nonsense in my time, but some of the ideas that I have heard this evening beat everything—for example, the notion that religion permeates economics. I hope that if my good friend the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, were asked, "If the supply curve is upward-sloping and the demand curve shifts to the right", she would not say that that was an ethical question, or at least I hope that she would not expect to receive any marks for that. I hope that she would not say that it was a religious question, but simply answer, "As price goes up, quantity goes up".

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I say to the noble Lord that I do not believe that I said that religion permeates economics in any sense.

Lord Lucas: Not so much religion, but philosophy should. I believe that one of the great faults with mainstream economics has been how little it takes account of how we act as people and of feelings and emotions.

Lord Peston: There really is a limit to how much teaching I can do this evening. I can only say that that reply scores nought out of 10 on any analysis of the subject. I did learn from the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. I would be absolutely horrified if biology is taught not as a science, but as including an ethical element. I have no difficulty with ethics in teaching, but if I am teaching biology or its equivalent, I teach biology. I would certainly say that there are ethical dimensions related to it. As regards economics, I have no difficulty about it, but not when I am teaching the subject, which is the point.

Baroness Walmsley: I believe that the noble Lord has picked up my meaning exactly, which was to make sure that students knew the context of the discussions within society as a whole in which they were learning certain facts, which then would enable them to make decisions.

Lord Peston: I agree with that entirely. I do not want to prolong this discussion. My noble friend will be well aware of the tricks that I shall be up to at Report stage to make sure that I get a full debate at the proper time. I am simply asking the question that if we have religious schools, what do they do which is so special? Does religion work through the curriculum and work to its detriment? If religion does not work through the curriculum, I do not know what religious schools do. That is my point. I shall return to that in due course.
	I say to the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, that I should have thought that religion comes into an enormous number of subjects. I cannot imagine how one can teach history without talking about religion because it is part of the subject. Earlier I enthusiastically said that we must have an acquaintance with the Bible if only because without it one cannot understand English literature at all. But that is not remotely what my amendment concerns. I am trying to deal with religious schools and what it is that everyone is so keen on. I am also uttering a word of warning. I believe that moving along these paths will be bad for our country.
	I ask my noble friend that if "the usual channels" do deals, could they possibly let the rest of us know what they are? It might well help us in how to proceed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Lord sits down, would he not give some credit for the fact that formal education in this country was introduced by the Churches? It was they who brought young people together to be educated and formal education grew out of that provision.

Lord Peston: That is not quite right. The Churches played an enormously important role in educating the poor. I said at Second Reading that no one could ever be other than supportive of the great contribution the Church of England made to education, particularly to the education of the poor. But there have always been educational establishments that were not religious. I would not remotely want to undermine the role of the Church. But I again emphasise that I do not see what that has to do with policy making today. I hope that we shall have a good chance to return to that. I am still trying to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 36 to 38 not moved.]

Lord Davies of Oldham: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.
	House adjourned at one minute to eleven o'clock.